Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 31

"Notability is not an absolute defense"
Can we make the point that notability is not an absolute defence wrt deletion? I've seen a load of borderline violations of BLP get kept at AFD because they were "notable" (most often "controversy" articles). Notability has never been a total absolute defence for keeping an article; otherwise, the BLP and copyright policies, and by extension Wikimedia Foundation actions, are totally useless. Sceptre (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of these occasions are articles on big controversies that get inflated by tons of news coverage and then go away (i.e. the current Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT (both of which are policy) appear to take precedence here over NOTE. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the defence always brought up is "it's notable", not "it doesn't violate NOT#NEWS". Of course, a controversy article would only be notable if the controversy itself was brought up in reliable sources (so, say, is a legitimate controversy article because it focuses on the controversy itself and not the existence of the key). Take for example, Rachel Marsden. Arguably notable, but it was still an attack page, and was deleted as such. If notability was an absolute defence, we couldn't delete it. Sceptre (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there lies the problem. Notability isn't an absolute defense by the mere fact it's a guideline and NOT#NEWS and WEIGHT are policy, the former of which this guideline mentions at WP:NOBJ. There's not really much more that can be written into the guideline itself; it's more that people are using NOTE inappropriately. The counterargument to "it's notable" is that "it doesn't matter that it's notable, it's undue weight to cover this recent flare of news events. See WP:NOBJ, which states that  ' it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. ' " Honestly, I know the position you're in and sympathize with it. There's simply not a whole lot more that can be put in this guideline. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it's implied, it needs to be codified so people don't make that mistake. Like the mistake that policies are somehow more important than guidelines; they're not, they just serve a different function (i.e. guidelines advise and policies instruct; no-one would argue that WP:BAN is more important than WP:AGF, for example). Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, official policy can overrule guidelines: something that is "notable" under the notability guideline may still not be capable of being included, e.g. it fails WP:NOT or something. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is right. Notability is not an "absolute defense" against deletion. Something may be "notable" but may still not be suitable for Wikipedia. Although the language of this infamous phrase: ""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in 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." seems to suggest that "notability" is synonymous with inclusion suitability, when that is not the case. (note how it confuses the two with each other. What I'd do is cross out "notability" and replace it with "suitability for inclusion".) Also, there is this header as well: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." which suggests that the true criterion for inclusion are not notability, but that notability is a guideline for assessing whether or not something meets them. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cruise ships
Inherently notable? Dloh  cierekim  15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * all ships--it turns out there are always sources. DGG (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe in "Navin Johnson Notability" since there are public records, but these are often sources that are nothing more than an entry in a directory (I am in the phone book, a reliable secondary source, but I am not notable). Large ships tend to have more information available, but if the only sources are government registries and advertisements, I would have my doubts.  There's an essay, Notability (vehicles), that might be of use, though it's really targeted towards things like aircraft and cars.  One section might be of use.  This is just an essay, of course.  SDY (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether government records are sufficient would depend on what they say. I agree a single line entry on a registry is not enough. But I cant recall one having been challenged here for which sufficient references could not be found. DGG (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that documentation which is inherent with the type of subject is not considered "significant," even if it's reliable and exists in multiple independent third party sources. Small-town newspapers cover youth sports in depth, a high school track team is likely to get coverage in every city's paper where it goes to meets.  But that does not make the track team notable even though it gets dozens of independent, reliably-sourced newspaper articles.  What would make a ship notable is if it got coverage for something that most ships of its class do not get, or if the class of ship was such that there was a general consensus that all members of that class are presumed to be notable, subject to review at AFD.  For example, there is a general consensus that US full-power AM and FM broadcast stations are notable but low-power ones aren't.  You are free to create an article on a full-power station without having to ask "is this station notable," that question will only need to be answered if someone takes it to AFD. As for cruise ships, I don't know the answer to that, the best place to ask is probably on a related wikiproject.  My hunch is if there's less than a few hundred of these on the planet, the answer will be "yes," if there's more than a few thousand, "no," if there's somewhere in between, maybe.  "All ships" are not notable, my friend's 15-foot motorboat is registered with the state but it's hardly notable. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for an inclusionist fork?
I think that the best sololution to the notabillity wars is to create a wikipedia without notabillity rules, no CSD A7 and no prod and AFD. The anything goes (except for vandal articles) Wikipedia would be much more popular. Then the deletionists can focus on the "notables".. 89.240.166.198 (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All content on WP is GDFL, so you're free to create your own version of wikipedia that ignores the mission or the Five Pillars. Getting the Foundation to foot that bill, that's a different story. --M ASEM  06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. On the other hand, isn't there the vastly popular Everything2? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. WP:FORK.  You might also want to read Deletionpedia.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Final comments on Notability (fiction)
The current proposal for a notability guideline for fiction is nearing completion, and we'd like to get a final round of comments on it to make sure it fully reflects community consensus inasmuch as it exists on this issue. Any comments you can provide at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) are much appreciated. Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I accidentally set a precedent? (individual automobiles)
I have never created an automobile related article, but I am plenty experienced with ship, aircraft and locomotive articles, to know that massive coverage of one vehicle is enough to establish notability, or so I thought. I created Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502 a few days ago. It seems I may have inadvertantly created the only example of an article for an individual car. It is apparently one of 17 particularly sought after cars, but nothing special otherwise, but the uniquness is its present day condition, and restoration potential, having been discovered after being stored for nearly 50 years, one of the last ever 'barn discoveries' they say, and will possibly set a record price at auction next month. Now some other editors are of the opinion that it needs to be merged with its type article on general principle, unconvinced by its claims of notability, and citing other stuff cars doesn't exist (mea culpa, I neglected to go look before starting it). There is the vehicles essay which is flawed but which seems to slightly support my view, but if I have gone against some prior car related precedent, or the car people are out of step with the ship people or the train people, then I think it needs wider eyes. See the merge discussion here. Apologies for already filling it up a bit, I have pretty much said my piece, and will now stand back and await comments. MickMacNee (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * some of this will depend on the forthcoming auction in February; if it does set a record there should be no problem justifying an article. Whether it should have such detail is something I do not know. The exceptional value is, I gather, due mainly to condition, not provenance or anything else intrinsic. I could also see articles on particular cars famous for victories in races, on the same basis as famous racehorses.  DGG (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to determine if the Fabulous Hudson Hornet is a precedent. However, I will say that a specific instance of a rare item likely generally should be covered in the article about that item, or the location/ownership/etc. of the specific instance, splitting off only when notability is clearly shown. --M ASEM  21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote the Notability (vehicles) as an extension of a proposed aircraft notability guideline, and there are parts of it that still show that legacy. There hasn't been a whole lot of feedback, and if there's more that should be included that'd be great.  SDY (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do set a precedent here, I would be in favor of it: if a particular car meets wikipedia's notability criteria, I think it ought to be included. Things like setting a record price in an auction, I think, would be sufficient (but not necessary) for notability, in my opinion. Cazort (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hello. The french interwiki is wrong, this is the right one : fr:Wikipédia:Notabilité. Thanks ! Dodoïste (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hello. The french interwiki is wrong, here is the right one : fr:Wikipédia:Notabilité. Thanks ! Dodoïste (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! -- lucasbfr  talk 16:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you, et bonne continuation ;) Dodoïste (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) marked as dormant
Notice: I marked Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) as dormant for lack of discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) for details. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

and reverted

 * The last substantial proposal on the talkpage was Jan 9, 2009. I've reverted that tag. DGG (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In a week if there's no significant discussion I'll mark this as closed/failed to reach consensus. There has been very little activity in well over a month.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard
There is a noticeboard associated with WP:RS where people can post specific links and discuss whether or not they should be considered a reliable source in certain circumstances. Would it be beneficial to the project to have a notability noticeboard available so people could post links and centrally discuss whether or not people feel they give notability to a certain subject or not? This would allow us to give people who have had an article deleted, wish to create an article, wish to split a subject off a bigger article etc, but aren't quite sure about various sources and how the community would view them a chance to discuss them before they move ahead with article creation (or recreation in the case of something deleted). This might also allow us to have some easy to find precedents on certain types of pages, etc that could be easier to search/reference, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I think that would be a great idea. And an excellent way to relax this guideline. Some sources are "narrowly reliable" for a certain subject, and being mentioned on their website or newsletter makes them notable to a broad but specific audience. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. I've put it up there and I'll encourage editors to use it. If it gets traffic will work it in to the template that lists noticeboards on it, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The very last thing we need is yet another place for discussion.We have more already than any one person can keep track of. DGG (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with keeping guideline discussion to the guideline page and specific source discussion to a noticeboard like RS/N. It lets us have those discussions separately rather than stepping on each other. It also lets us keep a clear archive of past discussions related to sources which is far easier for people to review than also sifting through guideline discussion at the same time.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help??
The question at the Help Desk is named "Instructions" about notability and reliable sources and what was given was a anti-deletionist rant but no help.—70.19.64.89 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I think you meant Help Desk.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (books)
There is a discussion about adding additional criteria relating to sale figures at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Any third party input is welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability Standards
I keep trying to make an article and have been refused more than once. I was told it wasn't notable enough. But no one will explain to me what that means. They just tell me to read some rules, which I do, but I don't get what they mean. It's not clear in the slightest. Please. Just explain to me what notable means. PleaseThink about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can&#39;t make it back into bread. (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may hate to hear this but read the General notability guideline first and that explains things fairly clear. For some plain English - fame does not equal notability. Notability, as defined on Wikipedia, has to do with "significant coverage" of a subject. Depending on the subject that could be the business down the street, the local cover band or a local radio personality. The most important thing is that any article must be backed up by published information that can be verified. Because the information used to establish notability must have been published it means an editor can not simply insert information based on what they may know, because that fails the "No original research" policy. And published information should not be written by the article subject or someone close to them because they would not have a neutral point of view. While it may sound off the underlying motto is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (Verifiability for full policy on the issue) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Academics notability criteria independent of main notability criteria?
From WP:PROF: ''This guideline is independent from the other notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO WP:MUSIC, etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other notability guidelines is irrelevant.''

This is in violation of WP:CONEXCEPT. Any comments?

Should we create separate independent guidelines for all professions? How about pilots? Engineers? Why are academics special class of people that deserve special treatment? Musicians, for example, are required to be ... the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable and WP:MUSIC is therefore not independent of basic WP:N guideline.


 * I think the rationale for separate criteria is that a typical academic researcher will publish a large number of articles in peer-reviewed journals, and will be more likely to be the subject of mention in peer-reviewed journals or other reputable sources--so people are concerned that unless stricter guidelines/standards are used, wikipedia will end up having a page on hundreds if not thousands of professors and researchers that aren't really that notable in the big scheme of things. Personally, I think wikipedia standards on notability are too strict across the board, so I would like to see more professors and academic researchers included in wikipedia.  But then again, I think more people in general, and more topics of all sorts should be included too.  I totally understand the rationale for a separate set of criteria for academics.  Cazort (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Or should professionals that think they deserve special treatment create their own wikipedias, like Wikidemia, Wikingineeria, etc.? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a contentious issue - when it came up on the RfC for fiction, there was no consensus for the view that an article had to meet both a subject notability guideline if it existed and a general notability guideline. Subject-specific guidelines actually pre-date the general guideline by some time - WP:MUSIC is our oldest notability guideline.


 * It is particularly problematic for academics - given that encyclopedias are, by their nature, somewhat academic projects, it does make sense for us to have an inherent bias towards academic perspectives. Such a bias needs to be carefully managed - but it manifests, I think, in a reluctance to delete articles on academics, and in a sense that peer-reviewed articles are by their nature significant viewpoints for the purposes of WP:NPOV. Is this special treatment? To an extent, but it is a special treatment that is inherent in the idea of an encyclopedia.


 * In any case, I don't think there's a must-change problem here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wording change
Right now, in the word-by-word explanation of the key part of this guideline, we have language that appears to define "sources" as "secondary sources." I would have thought this OK, except someone just cited this page as evidence that non-secondary sources are not allowed.

Perhaps we could fold "secondary" into "independent," since an independent source will necessarily be secondary as well? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think clarity calls for "independent, secondary sources". I'm all for being concise, but not at the expense of clarity. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is, specifying that "sources" means "secondary sources" is apparently confusing for some. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which particular argument are you referring to?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The guy on WP:FICT who said that "it is in opposition to the part of the General notability guideline which defines reliable sources as being secondary sources." Which, I'm assuming that the GNG was not overriding the parts of WP:RS that cover the role of primary sources as reliable sources. This page defines secondary sources as necessary for notability, but it does not attempt to redefine reliable sources as purely secondary sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...confusing to some... I didn't encounter such a confusion often. Secondary sources are required to show notability of article topic, primary can be used to backup individual statements. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The issue is that apparently this guideline is being read as saying that only secondary sources are reliable. Obviously secondary sources are required for notability. The issue is the line of the guideline that says "Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources." Which isn't true - we do not define sources as secondary sources. So that's poor and misleading phrasing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, it should be "Secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability." 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * removed protectededit tag as clarifying edit was done...212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the policy exists
The article doesn't explain why the policy exists. I know it may seem automatic to experienced users, but some explanation as to why notability is important might be prudent, as exists for the WP:Verifiability policy. SharkD (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good point, and it's important to know what the spirit of a guideline is so people don't get caught up in the details. Although you'll get a different answer from different people. Some people think WP:N is here to reinforce minimum standards of verifiability, as per WP:V that says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Other people think it's a way to filter stuff out based on importance. The truth is it's both, although I lean strongly towards the former. Randomran (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about importance at all. To decide what we deem important enough for an article is just too POV and worsening the inherent bias. The whole point of WP:N is to guide us as to whether it is likely that there are sufficient reliable sources to write a Verifiable, NPOV, No original research article. Double Blue  (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I cannot think of a good reason. We're a paperless encyclopedia and we're told not to worry about performance (there's an essay on that somewhere).  We have thousands of editors and so, really, so long as stuff is verifiable, no real reason not to allow people to edit and work on what they want to work on.  There is no such things as useless knowledge that is backed by reliable sources.  That's why the whole notability thing is actually anti-wikipedic, elitist, and subjective, as most editors seem to believe in practice (far more editors create, work on, and read the various articles that a much smaller number of individuals nominate and/or vote to delete in Afds or who comment in support of the notability guidelines on their talk page), but there's a good deal of editors who do argue against notability as well as seen at User:Thanos6,, , , , etc.  As seen on that first userpage, there's even a whole category of editors against it and there's also Notability/Historical/Non-notability/Essay, User:Ziggurat/Notability, User:Hiding/What notability is not, etc.  I have wavered on wanting to support the WP:FICT as a compromise means to move ahead and diminish some of the animosity among editors, but I have reservations, i.e. feeling as if compromising here would be a surrender of my morals and ideals.  In any event, just remember, "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia  If that is what he thought about a paper encyclopedia, well, we are not "better" than the philosophes and while yeah Britannica had limitations, they also had practical reasons for being limited, whereas we do not have those same practical concerns.  Something just strikes me as anti-academic for a vocal minority to tell a community that what they deem significant is not.  Some may say that fictional articles attract vandalism.  Like buttocks does not attract vandalism?  Some have said that people are passionate about fictional articles and dismissingly call their editors "fanboys".  2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict does not attract passionate editors?  I and I reckon many come to Wikipedia not for the articles I am used to in Britannica, but rather for the more obscure, so called "non-notable" stuff.  That is its attraction for many of us, i.e. the source for just about anything.  We should try to be neutral, we should not have nonsense, we should not have personal attacks, and we should not have copywright violations, but anything that we can actually construct an article on backed by sources should be fair game for inclusion.  The notion that some topics are not notable is just ridiculous, because everything is relevant somehow to the big picture.  It does not and should not bother me that we have articles I have no interest in or no knowledge about.  I should not feel compelled to want to delete these things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If it is not something made up, not a copyright violation, and not an attack piece, but editors are interested in it and can back it up by reliable sources, then it should be kept, because it is a contribution to the catalogging of human knowledge.  If we were dramatically running out of disc space, then okay, as with print encyclopedias I could see that, but that is not the impression I have (especially when instead of the articles that some dispute we wind up with a deletion discussion, so deleting to save space cannot be a legitimate argument).  Now as far as maintainability goes, yes, there is a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia that can be difficult to fight, but we gain new editors constantly and that is the nature of being "the encylopedia anybody can edit".  Do we really want to sacrifice our core goal of catalogging human knowledge?  If so, who decides what is "notable"?  Ah, there we have it, it boils down to a vocal group, because we wind up with AfDs that last less than a week determining the fate of articles that have been around for years with thousands of readers and hundreds of editors.  Many of us are adults who do not need a big brother to tell us what knowledge is worthwhile.  We come here looking for information.  Some of us appreciate this resource so much that we want to help improve our coverage of that information.  Some even donate to the project as well.  Then, some have the gall to say, "We'll I have no interest/need in what you come here for and do not think it meets my subjective concept of notability as such it must be deleted."  That does not make me or others say, "Okay, get rid of what I use Wikipedia for as I would rather build up the articles you do think worthwhile."  By contrast, if you say, "Hey, I am not interested in what you are editing, but I'll let it be, any chance though you can take a break from it and help me with this topic."  Then, I am apt to reply, "Sure."  I have followed these discussions for years and have yet to see anything that persuades me that notability is anything more than some kind of subjective elitism for which the "reasons" behind it can be easily torn down.  Both performance and maintainability "arguments" have the surface of persuadeability, but can be effectively challenged.  Anyone who claims, we are not taken seriously because we cover obscure topics, well, who cares what professional comedians or non-contributing bloggers think?  People who dismiss any knowledge as somehow invalid do not get it.  As Samuel Johnson said, "All knowledge is itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would rather know it than not."  Thus, we are left with the reality of notability, others trying to decide for the masses what is and is not worthwhile.  I do not suppose that those doing so are necessarily acting in bad faith or have bad intentions, but throughout history people have really convinced themselves that their way of doing things is for the greater good and yet were still "wrong" in the end.  So, no, I see no reason behind having "notability" when we already have verifiability that cannot be categorically refuted.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly didn't read all that but WP:N is a guideline to assist in interpreting Verifiability. Double Blue  (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I most frequently see it used in the WP:JNN manner, unfortunately. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, more specifically, notability is one means to avoid indiscriminate information by assuring there are reliable sources about something to be written about it (thus helping to meet WP:V). However, notability is a broken concept that really needs to be better thought out - but fixing it is not a simple task. --M ASEM  04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See that is the thing: I do not see why we need more than to say "topic must be covered in reliable sources". In that brief statement, we are saying that more than one source because it is a plural statement and that "reliable" sources, i.e. not my personal blog (I do not have one anyone, by the way).  Something that is verified/discussed in at least two reliable sources can generally be written about in some manner, if even as a sentence in another article for which we redirect to.  The whole notability thing is problematic, because some would say two journal articles about a specific topic represents notability, others will say dozens of newspaper articles do not.  Some will say chapters in multiple books represent notability, others want at least one book devoted entirely to that specific topic.  People's standards or definitions are thus subjective.  Think of how many AfDs in which you see in the same discussion: "Delete as non-notable per WP:N" and "Keep as notable per WP:N."  If we assume good faith, then both editors seriously believe their argument is in line with this page.  Look over various comment on the talk page at WP:FICT, I see a lot of "I don't want us to relax the notability guidelines", i.e. the subjective desire of the individual.  Well, there are probably topics I wish we focused more on than others, but both "want" and "wish" are subjective personal desires.  Someone wants us to not cover certain things, while others want us to.  It does not strike me as okay for one's want of exclusion to trump another's want of inclusion, because if it does than it is akin to information that is relevant to some people being presumed "more equal" than information that is relevant to other people, when the reality is again that all information is relevant and I would reckon based on my study of the Enlightenment that if Diderot and others had a wiki, they would want it to cover everything it possibly could.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It basically does say that now with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". All the rest is how to handle and interpret cases. Double Blue  (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After dealing with FICT, the way that notability is "broken" is that it is trying to be an inclusion guideline and a guideline of how to organize content into articles. We want to include as much as possible limited by only verification and indiscriminate information - but inclusion is not the same as "having an article". Instead, we want to encourage the organization of content into articles that will be comprehensive, well-sourced, and useful to readers.  Trying to do both of those under "notability" is not productive, as the last 2-3 years have shown.  I'm not saying that WP:N needs to be abolished- we need something in place as we work on establishing what should replace it, but it requires a lot of rethinking of existing policy and guideline while disrupting as little as possible. --M ASEM  04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as for policies that make sense, I am convinced by the general idea of WP:PRESERVE. Despite my tendency to argue to keep, I usually do not look at merges as some kind of defeat.  When I argue to keep, more than anything else, I am arguing to preserve the information.  As far as how best to use that information, I believe that is for talk pages.  Redlinking anything that is not utter nonsense and that people come here to work on makes no sense to me, just as deleting edit histories for non-hoaxes does not make sense.  I can see deleting copy vios from edit histories and personal attacks from edit histories, but some may have laid the basis for an article that is redirected due to insufficient sources at the time only to have new sources come about that can be used to justify a stand alone article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I share A Nobody's concerns regarding WP:PRESERVE, and think that the tone surrounding the policy and deletion in general (especially WP:JNN now that it has been brought to my attention) is typically nastier and more subjective than is warranted. However, I feel DoubleBlue's point that multiple reliable sources are required in order to satisfy Verifiability is the correct one. I just wish Wikipedia users were more consistent in citing this as the reason for deletion instead of citing that an article is simply "not important", and that this point were expressed better in the actual article. To this end, I suspect that the term "Notability" itself is questionable, and could be replaced with something that lends itself better toward the correct interpretation. SharkD (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "notability" is troublesome in that it confuses many to believing we are determining importance rather than strictly sufficient "notes" to write a fair article and it is occasionally taken as an insult by contributors and subjects. Double Blue  (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading Randomran's post, below, I think my point could be better expressed as being that I don't believe that "unverifiable" material is necessarily "trivial" (or vise versa of course), and that the purpose of this discussion should be to pin down which of the two (i.e. "triviality" or "unverifiability") is more important, and which of the two forms the basis of this policy. I am not of the opinion that the two are compatible in any way with each other. SharkD (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Sorry. SharkD (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE
Dedenting to a new section. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is perfectly consistent with deletionism for non-notability: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. [...] Exceptions include: [...] irrelevancy". If two sources from the mainstream or scholarly media don't want to discuss a subject, how verifiably relevant is it? As for stub merges, if one happens and enough new sources for an article do show up, one could just undo the merge. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is. Articles that have no reliable third-party sources are not only likely to be trivial topics, but it's virtually impossible to write an article that meets guidelines like WP:NOT and WP:V without those sources. We WP:PRESERVE verified information. But WP:V (WP:PROVEIT) also tells us that any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. This is also off topic, since WP:PRESERVE and WP:N are meant to balance and complement each other, not trump each other. Randomran (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that what is meant here by "irrelevancy" is the inclusion of material that steers an article off (i.e. is irrelevant to) its topic. This is often repairable through article reorganization and additional research. I'm just not convinced that it meshes very well with the definition of notability, if one accepts that notability is merely another word for a state of verifiability. SharkD (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the problem. We preserve verified information, and try to verify other statements in order to preserve them too. Everything else fails our guidelines and policies, and gets thrown out the window. It's pretty simple. Randomran (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that triviality is a thought that should be banished from our minds and never considered. We should only consider whether the material can be verified or not, and whether the verification that is provided meets our requirements. Judgements based on triviality reflect bias among editors and can lead to mistakes as well as an unfriendly environment. There are many policies that don't lend themselves to this view, but I believe it is compatible with the WP:Verifiability policy, and that WP:Verifiability is bigger and more important, hence my claim that there is a conflict and that it needs to be resolved (for instance by replacing "irrelevancy" with "triviality", above). SharkD (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and approach this from a different tack: are there policies that specifically mention the word "trivial", and which are they? SharkD (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the WP:Five Pillars, and "indiscriminate information" is definitely mentioned in it, so my point is moot. Sorry for taking the discussion off-topic and deciding to rant instead. However, I believe that the idea that Notability rests solely upon Verifiability for its basis is incorrect. Rather, it rests equally as much upon "indiscriminate information". SharkD (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that much I definitely agree with. We don't cover everything. We cover what reliable people have covered. Randomran (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Indiscriminate information" is as unfortunate and imprecise a term as "notability" is. The IINFO section of WP:NOT should actually just be named "Miscellaneous", since the five items listed there have no real common bond, and there is no agreed upon definition of "indiscriminate".  (There can't be such a definition: like the labels "trivia", "unencylopedic", "notable", and so on, it's entirely subjective.)
 * The guideline we do have on trivia, WP:TRIVIA, merely discourages trivia sections, which are defined as a jumble of unsorted facts which may or may not be in a section named Trivia, and which may or may not actually be trivial.
 * You can't legislate the subjective. But that doesn't stop people from trying.  Constantly.--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, but it's just not going to float well with the rest of the project. The popular definition of "Notable" is "Important". SharkD (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is still in dispute?
After six weeks of full protection, what dispute remains? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We never really settled the WP:NNC issue. There was no consensus to change it as drastically as Pixelface wanted it to. But there was definitely support to rephrase it. It's just a question of how. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But is it still so "hot" that continued protection would be required? (i.e. that if protection were removed now the edit war would quickly flare up again?) mike4ty4 (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to change it drastically. I wanted to change it back to the way it was before a banned user added the link to WP:UNDUE without any prior discussion. There was no consensus for your changes Randomran, like I explained here. The NNC section should be removed anyway &mdash; it just repeats text from the second paragraph. --Pixelface (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which has consensus. People don't WP:OWN changes, and you have to stop applying ad hominem arguments to discredit changes that have had consensus for nearly a year. Should we start deleting articles that have been created by banned users too? Randomran (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Do you want me to starting quoting people again? Everyme added the WP:UNDUE link to the NNC section without any prior discussion. The NNC section shouldn't be changed back because Everyme is indefinitely blocked. The NNC section should be removed because it just repeats information from the second paragraph. The notability guidelines apply to things one would create an article for (known as subjects or topics) &mdash; they don't apply to the contents of the article (except for lists of people). And no, we shouldn't start deleting articles created by banned users. Shall I notify everyone who edited the NNC section last year? You still haven't explained why you changed the heading in November. --Pixelface (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, did you mean the second paragraph in WP:N has consensus? If so, I agree with you. Which is why the NNC section needs to be changed, or removed. --Pixelface (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The NNC section doesn't say that the third-party sourcing requirement applies to content. The UNDUE part has had consensus for months, regardless of who originally added it. There has been no consensus to remove it. Randomran (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the UNDUE part has not had consensus for months, regardless of your claim that it does. I explained that here. You cannot claim consensus where none exists. There doesn't need to be consensus to remove it if there was no consensus to add it. And judging from what Davidwr, SmokeyJoe, Black Falcon, Shereth, Kevin Murray, Peter Ballard, Phil Sandifer, me, Colonel Warden, Skomorokh, DGG, Peregrine Fisher, Masem, and Theseeker4 have said, there is consensus to remove it.


 * Are you saying the UNDUE part has had consensus for months since it hasn't been removed? --Pixelface (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying UNDUE has been a part of this guideline for months, and you have to build a consensus to remove it. At this point, you don't have a consensus to remove it. You have no consensus, at best. I've tried reaching out to you to build a consensus based on common ground, but that didn't work. So we're stuck with the guideline as is. Randomran (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) But UNDUE has not been a part of this guideline for months. Let's go over the edits: At least 14 people have told you the UNDUE stuff does not belong in this guideline. So what's the problem? --Pixelface (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE link added by Dorftrottel
 * (cur) (last) 17:03, 15 March, 2008 Dorftrottel (Talk | contribs) (14,810 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: Due weight) (undo)
 * WP:UNDUE link removed by Jossi
 * (cur) (prev) 19:40, 15 March, 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (14,786 bytes) (not necessary) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff added by Aylad
 * (cur) (last) 22:29, 7 May, 2008 Aylad (Talk | contribs) (15,622 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: clarified after discussion on Wikipedia_Talk:Notability#Qualifying_when_notability_does_not_apply) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff expanded by Randomran
 * (cur) (last) 20:36, 30 May, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (16,277 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: Copied relevant parts of WP:UNDUE. This is more readable, and is still concise.) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff removed by SmokeyJoe
 * (cur) (last) 12:56, 8 August, 2008 SmokeyJoe (Talk | contribs) (15,666 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: undue weight (policy, not guideline!) has no reason to be paraphrased here) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff added by Randomram
 * (cur) (last) 23:59, 10 August, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (16,114 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: re-adding paraphrase, since it helps to explain how we approach notable content) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff changed by Kanodin
 * (cur) (last) 16:58, 23 September, 2008 Kanodin (Talk | contribs) (15,687 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: overhaul from talk page; disagree? then revert and discuss!) (undo)
 * Arbcom case stuff added by Randomran
 * (cur) (last) 05:20, 10 October, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (15,305 bytes) (?Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content: adding statement form arbcom decision) (undo)
 * First paragraph of NNC removed by Randomram
 * (cur) (last) 00:10, 8 November, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (15,273 bytes) (removing first paragraph, which contradicts the second paragraph) (undo)
 * Revert by Phil Sandifer
 * (cur) (last) 00:17, 8 November, 2008 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) (15,303 bytes) (That's a rather substantial change.) (undo)
 * Revert by Randomran
 * (cur) (last) 00:30, 8 November, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (15,273 bytes) (i haven't added any new rules. just cleaned-up the contradiction.) (undo)
 * UNDUE stuff changed by Randomram
 * (cur) (last) 04:04, 8 November, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (15,545 bytes) (?Notability of article content: adding phrase suggested by Phil at talk page...) (undo)
 * New text by Pixelface
 * (cur) (last) 13:14, 9 November, 2008 Pixelface (Talk | contribs) (15,072 bytes) (?Notability of article content: I think this language is better) (undo)
 * Revert by Randomran
 * (cur) (last) 17:32, 9 November, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) (15,513 bytes) (rv - now *that* is a substantial change. reverting back to compromise.) (undo)
 * New text added again by Pixelface
 * (cur) (prev) 10:22, 24 November, 2008 Pixelface (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (?Notability of article content: changed the NNC section, see talk page) (undo)
 * Revert by Randomran
 * (cur) (prev) 18:05, 24 November, 2008 Randomran (Talk | contribs) m (15,595 bytes) (revert. no consensus for your preferred version a week ago, no consensus now either.) (undo)
 * Restored version from March 15 by Pixelface
 * (cur) (prev) 11:25, 26 November, 2008 Pixelface (Talk | contribs) (15,288 bytes) (?Notability of article content: restored NNC section to version 198321225 from 01:06, 15 March, 2008, see talk) (undo)
 * Revert by Masem
 * (cur) (prev) 12:59, 26 November, 2008 Masem (Talk | contribs) (15,793 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Pixelface; Revert - NOT becuase I disagree or agree, but this is not in line with WP:BRD. Get clear consensus to change on talk first.. (TW)) (undo)
 * Restored version from March 15 by Pixelface
 * (cur) (prev) 06:09, 12 December, 2008 Pixelface (Talk | contribs) (15,281 bytes) (restored NNC section to version 198321225 from 01:06, 15 March, 2008, again) (undo)
 * Revert by Collectonian
 * (cur) (prev) 06:31, 12 December, 2008 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (15,784 bytes) (Undid revision 257439492 by Pixelface (talk) rv; this change obviously has no consensus) (undo)
 * Revert by Colonel Warden
 * (cur) (prev) 23:11, 12 December, 2008 Colonel Warden (Talk | contribs) (15,281 bytes) (revert) (undo)
 * Revert by Sephiroth BCR
 * (cur) (prev) 23:33, 12 December, 2008 Sephiroth BCR (Talk | contribs) m (15,784 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Colonel Warden; No consensus for this change; acting on his behalf and edit warring isn't helping your cause, it's hurting it. using TW) (undo)
 * Revert by Colonel Warden
 * (cur) (prev) 10:35, 13 December, 2008 Colonel Warden (Talk | contribs) (15,281 bytes) (revert per talk - please establish consensus for this addition) (undo)
 * Revert by Collectonian
 * (cur) (prev) 10:38, 13 December, 2008 Collectonian (Talk | contribs) (15,784 bytes) (Undid revision 257668221 by Colonel Warden (talk) this is not an addition; no consensus for this removal) (undo)
 * Disputedtag added by Colonel Warden
 * (cur) (prev) 10:42, 13 December, 2008 Colonel Warden (Talk | contribs) (15,823 bytes) (Add dispute tag) (undo)
 * WP:N protected by SoWhy
 * (cur) (prev) 10:46, 13 December, 2008 SoWhy (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Notability": Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) (undo)
 * WP:N unprotected by SoWhy
 * (cur) (prev) 16:02, 2 February, 2009 SoWhy (Talk | contribs) m (15,801 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Notability": no further discussion on disputed content ([move=sysop] (indefinite))) (undo)
 * The problem is that you just showed it was there for 8 months, and you haven't shown me anything resembling a consensus to remove it. And despite your best efforts, it's still there after another 3. Saying "I dispute it" isn't enough to build a consensus to remove it. Randomran (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The reach of this guideline at AFD
As much as the notability guidelines are accepted (or maybe the following implies they're nto) anyone who frequents AFD is of course familiar with flatly stating that a topic is notable, without addressing claims that it is not, or the participants of an AFD seem to invent a new SNG on the spot. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on what people think about this, or how admin consider it when closing an AFD. Are the notability guidelines fluid things that are nixed by the consensus of a small group of AFD participants, or is the guideline exempt from such a contradictory, local consensus? If admins are permitted to ignore insubstantive ("Keep: It's notable.") !votes when closing an AFD, what about assertions of notability based on reasons that aren't actually found in the guidelines? I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (2nd nomination) in particular, and the no-consensus previous AFD of that page. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen both, i.e. many an instance where people declare something non-notable without any further explanation and in many cases where it is apparent that it is per their own subjective understanding of that term rather than per this page. You never know when someone makes a notability "argument" if it is a personal opinion or a reference to this page.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am finding, more and more, that guidelines only apply in "certain" cases. And to what degree, and which ones, are open for discussion. My impression of this guideline always was that it lays down the foundation for the other subject specific guidlines. However it was pointed out to me that is not true at all and it is clear in the wording. So, if you read the introduction to this guideline, you see the following: "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." The key word is "or" and because of the word "or", when "push comes to shove" in deletion discussions on certain topics, it can be said that this guideline does not matter at all. My question was, and still is, that if this is true are we also to throw out, for example, what a subject specific notability guideline such as Notability (films) says in the General principles section? "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."" In other words if a SNG is chosen over Notability to establish the subjects notability one can never argue a "keep" or "delete" using criteria from Notability. Likewise I had asked about Notability (people) and it's use of Basic criteria, which follow wording at the general notability guideline. The implication was that any article about a person does not have to follow the basic criteria, or anything found at Notability (people), if they use one of the other SNG's. For years I think the overall feeling (or "reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice) is that any subject must meet, at the least, some form of the general notability guideline. But as several of the SNG's use wording that hints otherwise the answer to your question asking if the guidelines are "fluid things" and, in a sense, I would say "yes". I say this because of not only the obvious reasons (They are always been updated or re-worded) but because of issues brought on by inconsistent wording between seemingly related guidelines. On the other question of deletion discussions and closing admins counting votes, I have asked this exact question in the past and was told, ideally, all closing admins follow what the "Deletion guidelines for administrators" says under the "Rough consensus" header which is, in part: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor who rewrote WP:N and made it a guideline is the same editor who changed WP:DGFA to say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument." He doesn't speak for everyone. --Pixelface (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This version of the guideline began in September 2006 as an overview of the various subject-specific notability guidelines ("SNGs"), which appeared in Template:IncGuide. Later, a supposedly recurring element of the SNGs at the time was added to this page. And later Uncle G added his "primary notability criterion" to WP:N, which evolved into the current "GNG". I created a timeline of notability guidelines a while ago. That "or" sentence means if a subject meets an SNG, it's presumed to be notable. If a subject does not meet an SNG, but meets the GNG, it's presumed to be notable. This guideline does not say that failing to meet an SNG or failing to meet the GNG means something is not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice timeline, it is a good read. I want to clarify that I am not (was not) saying that "failing to meet an SNG or failing to meet the GNG means something is not notable", I was saying that depending on where you start it is not always clear if the definitions found at the general notability guideline apply across the board. For example if the article is about a living person who is a singer it would seem the the article would have to meet criteria found at Notability (people) which has a statement saying the criteria "reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice" and includes a Basic criteria that lays down the "basic" criteria that article on people should follow. After that is lists "additional" criteria based on professions. So far, if this is the starting point, you know that in order to start to establish notability the subject must have been discussed in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Now, being a singer, you would look down and see "See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc". Up until now all seems well but when you get to that guideline you are presented with a list of 12 criteria and the wording that the subject may meet any one of those criteria, with a Basic criteria-like option, not a requirement. So, under C2 this singer could have sung back up on a recording that was a "charted hit on any national music chart", no "published secondary source material" needed, no "Significant coverage" needed. Only a credit somewhere on a inner sleeve that says "Singer (back up vocal on track 2)" would be needed to verify this. Same goes for C3, C5, C6, C8, C10 and C11. Logic may say if the subject has done any of those than there should be "Significant coverage" but that was/is my point - that guideline is worded so it excludes the inclusion of the requirement of WP:GNG or even the required Basic criteria for people. As currently written you don;t need any coverage, all you need is to verify the criteria is met. Any credit on an album establishing some sort of instrument or some type of vocal would do for C2, C3, C5, C6, C8 or C10. A single line mention in a live concert review would help to verify C6, so would a bio that established the subject was once part of a band the once contained someone who ended up in a band with a famous musician that had a hit record. At that point it becomes more of an issue that basic notability requirements such as "significant coverage" or "non trivial mentions" are "nixed by the consensus of a small group of AFD participants" because they will point out that there is no requirement for that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think you were saying that; I was just mentioning it. And "significant coverage" is not a requirement (although some people may dispute that). And notability cannot be "established" (although some people may dispute that). Those things in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are based on status. Those are traits some people consider evidence of notability. They are indicators. But they're not guarantees that an article will remain on Wikipedia. If you can find sources and other people consider them "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are indepent of the subject", that's as close to a guarantee as you can get for an article on Wikipedia. But the notabiliy guidelines are just guidelines. It's AFD participants who make the ultimate decision (and also admins deleting articles according to speedy deletion criteria). --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether something is "notable" or not is a subjective opinion, no matter what this page says. "Notable." "Not notable." Two different opinions. This talk page is not the place to advertise an AFD you started. If you don't know what "notable" means, please look it up   . The definition you gave in that AFD is incorrect. In short, the notability guidelines are a mess. --Pixelface (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disagree with almost everything that Pixelface has said here, but... ahh... I'm going to. First of all, while "Consensus is not determined by counting heads" may not be agreed upon by literally everyone, the people who differ on it are a diminishingly small minority.  Secondly, while "it's notable" is an opinion (of course) "it's notable due to three noble prizes [sic] and having its name carved on the moon by a giant laser" is an opinion backed up by facts.  Sadly, I see a lot of "I never heard of it so it's not notable."


 * In general, the notability guidelines work incredibly well and cover the vast majority of cases with almost complete agreement among the population. (There's strong confirmation bias among some who feel otherwise, in that they engage in protracted and often heated debate on the subject then use that same heat to support their inital premise that the guidelines are a mess.  (This is both the "nuke all Pokemon from orbit" camp as well as the "list every living person" camp, no one is clean here.))


 * The reason that "local consensus" is not normally allowed to overrule (for lack of a better word) a guideline is because sampling bias is very strong in deletion debates: People who simply love the stay-puff guy edit that article, see the tag, and will fight damn hard to see him stay in wikipedia. These debates last five days and are edited by maybe twenty people.  Guidelines are edited by hundreds over years.


 * brenneman 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The community of editors and readers who work on and read articles some deem non-notable vastly outnumbers those deeming things non-notable, as such "notability" does not reflect the actual community's ideas, but only a segment of the community. In practice, most wikipedians (readers and editors alike) pay no heed to notability as its inconsistent with the whole point of the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Guidelines may be edited by hundreds, but concern articles edited by thousands and view by thousands more.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 12:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And if they're unhappy with how Wikipedia policy works, they can register and argue to change it, just as you have. There's no practical way to assume the position of people who have not expressed their opinion anywhere that it can be addressed or replied to. WP:CONS addresses this issue; consensus is necessarily the consensus of those who show up, but small discussions should generally not override large ones for a variety of reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't even know this discussion is going on. Policy and guideline talkpages are things people stumble on. Some people just stumble on them earlier than others. For example, after you started editing, you didn't edit in WT-space for 4 1/4 months. You didn't edit the talkpage of a policy or guideline for 6 1/4 months. You didn't edit this talkpage for 3 1/3 years. Consensus says "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." That's not true. Silence does not imply consent. But even if it were true, this talkpage was viewed a grand total of 997 times in January, hardly "adequate exposure to the community." --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If "consensus" is defined as "general agreement" , then yes, it is determined by counting heads, not by evaluating "the strength of argument." That's seen every day in RFAs, and RFBs, and whenever a Steward election or Arbcom election rolls around.


 * That line in WP:DGFA is just a loophole so admins can do whatever they want. "He's notable" and "He's notable because he has three Nobel Prizes" are both opinions. If you value Nobel Prizes, that's your opinion. How can judging whether something is worthy of notice, worthy of your attention be anything but subjective opinion? If you say "He's notable for having three Nobel Prizes", that means he is well-known because he has three Nobel Prizes. That's something he may be famous for. That's something he is known for. That's a little less subjective, but whether someone is well-known depends on who you're asking.


 * Why do you think "notability" guidelines "work incredibly well"? You can go back to Archive 1 for heated debates. And even further back than that. Most people agree that "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are indepenent of the subject" is evidence of notability. But that phrase is so vague that you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would dismiss it. And that is not the only evidence of notability.


 * You say sampling bias is very strong in deletion debates. Why does that not apply to guidelines? People who simply love to write rules and watch people follow them will spend all day making up new rules for people to follow. Yes, guidelines are edited by hundreds of people over the years. For example, this guideline, Notability, was edited by 400 unique users as of November 10, 2008. As of February 5, 2009, Notability has been edited by 419 unique users. The previous version of the guideline was moved to Notability/Arguments in September 2006. It was then moved to Notability/Historical/Arguments in January 2007, where it now remains. That page was edited by 95 unique users.


 * But as of February 5, 2009, Wikipedia has over 8.8 million registered users. Over 160,000 users have made at least one edit in the last 30 days.


 * I'm sure there are people who see something they're interested in up for deletion and fight hard to keep it. But people intent on removing material from Wikipedia will also fight "damn hard" to remove it, and will even team with other people. They'll even create sockpuppets to argue to delete as well as nominate articles for deletion.


 * How many unique editors do you think have participated in deletion debates? Is it more than 419? You describe deletion debates as "local consensus." But "notability" guidelines were created because people kept saying "non-notable" in deletion debates. I've created a timeline of notability guidelines. If you know something about webcomics I don't, you're welcome to leave a note on the talkpage.


 * Look at what DGFA said before it was changed to say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument..." I'm sure the stuff about not counting heads goes back to the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and all that's needed to create an account is a username and password &mdash; so people have the ability to create multiple accounts. That is Wikipedia's greatest flaw. But until that is changed, that's why Wikipedia has Checkusers.


 * It's totally ridiculous to say that consensus is not determined by counting heads, but rather evaluating "the strength of argument" &mdash; and then having someone elected by counting heads do the evaluating. --Pixelface (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick answer: you cannot come to a compromise position with an elected position: either they are or they aren't. On the other hand, content itself and the policy and guidelines can come to a compromise, and thus a simple vote is insufficient to determine if there is a compromise point. --M ASEM 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone either has sysop rights or they don't. And an article is either visible only to sysops or visible to everyone. Text is either present in a policy/guideline or it isn't. Wikipedia has decided that those are decided by what the consensus is. When it comes to articles and policies and guidelines, how do you determine if a point is actually a compromise? "Strength of argument"? No. In the time I've been here, I've seen far too many things offered up as "compromises" that weren't really compromises at all. --Pixelface (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "consensus" is a compartmentalized form of voting or head-counting. Certain users are given more weight, and this varies depending on their interest in a particular subject matter, with long-time users often being weighted more. In general, it depends on how well you "get along" with people within each "compartment." Each compartment in turn is a sphere of users with common interests, a history of working together and a common agenda. Complaining that it happens on Wikipedia is silly and will quickly be labeled "disruptive".
 * All in all, Wikipedia is a group of users working together on a common goal, and what that goal is is determined by consensus. Policies are changeable, and instances of WP:IGNORE occurring (i.e. "local consensus") are signs that new opinions are being formed and that new policies may appear down the road. I've personally been criticized for the "strength of argument" argument, so I don't think it can be given much weight. SharkD (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability (fiction) seeking concensus
There is ongoing discussion about the proposed guideline for elements of a work of fiction. There seems to be some unresolved issues between the reading of that guideline, and what is written in this guideline. I would hope that editors familiar with the nuances of this guideline please assist in discussions there to help build consensus. Other outstanding issues with the proposed guideline include it being too complex or poorly worded, and the criteria used to judge an elements noteworthiness. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be necessary to change this guideline as well so as to avoid conflicting or confusing guidelines. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dare ya to answer this question
Does notability only apply to account article creation, or does notability also apply to the inclusion of new information into the article? A question has come up in an article, and I would like some clarification. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability does not affect article content. Once a topic is shown to be notable, any content that is appropriate per other content guidelines can be included. --M ASEM  16:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "account creation"? I read that to be asking if an editor can create an account if they are "notable" - which is not at all true. If you mean "article creation" than the basic criteria for all articles is that the subject must establish some sort of defined "notability" requirement. What that is varies from subject to subject. As for "inclusion of new information" it depends on what you mean - or, in other words, the information itself may not need to be "notable" but the source of that information does have to be verifiable and reliable, so there is a chance the information may come from a "notable" source, but there is no requirement that all sources must be "notable" per se. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Soundvisions, article creation is what I meant to say (I've stricken the incorrect text and added the correct word). Tightening down my question, a topic has come up in discussion wherein a news event refers via RS reporting to subject matter in an article, ie., a fictional character. Does the new information to be added have to meet any criteria for notability before being added to the article? My understanding that notability is permanent; if something is notable, then it always is. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the strictest sense, no, Notability does not govern article content. However, we do have a host of content policies and guidelines like WP:Verifiability and WP:Trivia and even subject-specific stuff like WP:VG/POP where editors may argue using the word "notability" in its English language sense, i.e. noteworthy. Nifboy (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:TRIVIA again a little more closely. It does not deal with content, only how that content is presented. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but in practice the usual response to such a section is to nuke it entirely (much the same way a "merge" result at AfD might not result in any merging at all), so I do consider it a content guideline. Nifboy (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, in practice a handful of editors might go about doing that, but a far greater number of editors restore and write these sections. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can consider it whatever you'd like, but you would be wrong to consider it a content guideline, because it is a style guideline. When content gets nuked, it is up to rational editors to consider if there was any content that shouldn't be removed, and to restore that specific content. I'm not saying that all such-and-such should be whatevered (I've dropped a few nukes myself), I'm saying that content found in trivia sections should be cleaned up on the merit of the actual content, not the section title. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is in regards to the Dendermonde nursery attack. The suspect in that crime was described as having worn facepaint and hair coloring similar to that of Heath Ledger's Joker. Initial, verifiable reports were from a policeman speaking to the media, and several other RS media outlets picked up the story. A subsection in regards to the 'in popular culture' was attempted in the Joker (comics) article, but nixed by consensus (as being first a BLP vio, which, of course, it wasn't) as being unrelated. The suggestion was made in talk to provide a See Also link to the Dendermonde article, to offset any undue weight arguments from initiating. This is currently being opposed on the basis that it isn't a notable inclusion. One of the editors suggested that notability doesn't apply to information added after the article's creation, which confused me (and prompted me coming here for some knowledge). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It still isn't a notability issue. More in a sense is if the content is appropriate for the Joker article, which is mostly up to editorial discretion. That is, there is no policy that says it has to be mentioned there, no policy that says it shouldn't be mentioned there, it's just how well it is incorporated into the article.  Calling it a "pop culture" reference is probably not the right way to include it however.  --M ASEM  23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I absolutely concur with tht, Masem; we are to be neutral, not callous. How would you suggest it be incorporated? There are folk who seem willing to fight to the death over it even being mentioned, but that's mostly regular dramahz from one or two folk. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not affect article content, per se. WP:N is substantially a consequence of other policies. WP:N is, as I look at it, a special case of WP:NOR, especially the section WP:PSTS, where for an entire topic, there does not exists sufficient sources to meet WP:NOR, and in these cases, WP:N, empowered by WP:DEL#REASON, is a reason for deletion of an article at WP:AfD.

Others seem to see stronger connections between WP:N and WP:NPOV. Yet others want to tie WP:N to either WP:V or WP:RS, but I disagree with that because WP:V and WP:RS are far more permissive than WP:PSTS or WP:N. Some people say that none of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR can be understood without a parallel reading of the other two.

So, no, WP:N does not govern article content, but the policies underlying WP:N do themselves govern content. If you were thinking a piece of content could be contrary to WP:N, then probably you’d best go to WP:PSTS. In short, sources, usually reputable secondary sources in borderline cases, should govern all content. If someone else has written about it, we write about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And parts of WP:NOT come into play in this case as well. Not everything that is in a reliable source or "newsworthy" is encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a Notability guideline for TV?
I just noticed that there really isn't one. Music, books and movies all have specific inclusion criteria that they have to meet to be here, but for television programs it's basically "if this is or was on a major TV channel at any point, it's notable". We should totally tighten this up a bit dudes, TV shows don't deserve special treatment. Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia which means ideally we should begin purging all the non notable programming that don't have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Things like short-lived, canceled shows, foreign television and all that useless stuff. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There should not be any notability guidelines at all. We need some kind of inclusion criteria that does not include the elitist and subjective word "notability."  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, my next article will be about my dog rover, and I'll have my best friend write one about me. First I need to take the editor of the local reliable-source newspaper out to an expensive dinner and convince him to feature us in the "meet your neighbor" page. Hmm, maybe a notability guideline is appropriate after all.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's totally inappropriate. WP:V would be sufficient to cover your dog article and if covered in a reliable source, then not really a big deal if the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit had an article on it, especially if it was a basset hound and yes I am serious.  It wouldn't bother me any.  "Notability" is nothing more than a crux for "I don't like it" as used in practice.  We can have an inclusion criteria or inclusion guideline, but something without a subjective and elitist word.  We might as ell have "popularity" as our inclusion guideline if we're going to use something like "notability."  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a hunch, but I think most editors would disagree with you. If I'm wrong, that's okay too, I'll go with WP:CONSENSUS on this.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there are over 180 editors listed in a category for Wikipedians against notability. By and large in practice, i.e. if we take into account the thousands who create and work on articles but don't participate in these discussions and the millions who come here for these articles, it is fairly apparent that the consensus is against notability.  People seem okay with some kind of inclusion criteria, but "notability" lacks real support.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You could be right, but I doubt it. Perhaps a centralized discussion or at least a village pump discussion is in order. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt in mind that notability lacks real support. Even if 100 editors pledged to support it, well there's still 180 in the category of Wikipedians against notability.  I am not opposed to a discussion that actually gets widespread participation from article creator and writers.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do think A Nobody is trolling? --Pixelface (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He must be referring to himself in which case I agree that he shouldn't troll, as the rest of us are having a serious discussion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an easy one. If Wikipedia doesn't want those articles, you say: "Don't create articles about your pets." "Don't create articles about yourself." "Don't create articles about your friends." Next. --Pixelface (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, articles don't have to meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BK, or WP:FILM. They are guidelines. Television shows aren't getting any special treatment, "dude." Read NOTPAPER. If something would be in an encyclopedia about television, it belongs in Wikipedia. Television shows are not notable because they're written about, they're notable because people watch them. Advertisers pay TV stations money to run ads during the shows. Wikipedia can have articles about short-lived shows, cancelled shows, and "foreign" television. Which country do you live in? --Pixelface (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Norse: as you said, TV shows don't deserve special treatment. That is, general notability guideline is sufficient. Right now an awkwardly-named Notability (fiction), covering a chunk of TV life forms, is under discussion. NVO (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, I'd like some input by some hardcore deletionists like myself, though the discussions thus far have been noted. I mean, why should articles like Strike Witches that are totally devoid of reliable, third party sources exist? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they exist and should be added to the article by those who can translate rather than remove it altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm actually inclined to agree with my inclusionist friends on this particular point. That almost every television show ever made has an article does not indicate that we are lax on TV programmes when it comes to notability requirements - it's simply an function of how difficult it is to get onto a broadcast television network without being noticed by a variety of reliable third party sources. Much like WP:ATHLETE uses "played for a professional football team" as a leading indicator of coverage which may or may not be present in an article at a given point, "been broadcast on television" is a good guarantee that sources do exist simply because people are paid to cover what's on the box. Certainly the current Strike Witches article shouldn't consist entirely of plot and release trivia, but even your average hardcore deletionist doesn't entirely discard the possibility of potential sourcing when considering whether an article is worth keeping. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Judging from the article, it has a novel series, two manga series, an OVA, and 12 episodes that aired on Fukui TV. Do you think nobody in Japan is familiar with it? I'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't live in Japan. Do you speak Japanese? How do you know what sources exist in Japanese, dude? --Pixelface (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 私は日本語、馬鹿で完全に流暢である. また…WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, adaptions and popularity aren't a solid basis for inclusion, dawg. The sites on that google search are just trivial mentions and blog entries, not reliable, third party sources. Being broadcast on television, despite being quite a feat, isn't a basis for inclusion either. We don't include books just because they're put out by notable publishers, do we? The answer is no, because that doesn't guarantee coverage in reliable, third party sources. Even if this "Strike Witches" program were notable(it isn't), others like Pelswick, Michiko to Hatchin(and all other articles with "dust in the wind" anime that are made each season as their subject) and Just Legal would not meet the same criteria. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't really know until the japanese wikipedia starts sourcing articles like we do. Our anime articles have more sources than theirs, and I know they got a ton of magazines that dissect anime to the point of being a NOTE fan's nightmare.  If you knew Japanese, lived in Japan, and wanted to spend a lot of money on magazines, you could probably establish notability for all of Strike Witches's major characters, and probably some minor ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the Japanese character set installed on this computer, but if you speak Japanese, great. Try looking for sources in Japanese. I don't care what that essay says. Popularity isn't a solid basis for inclusion? Could you explain that to me? If something is popular, that means it's well-known. One of the synonyms of "notable" is "well-known." Strike Witches appears to not be a hoax, although I could be wrong.


 * Did people watch the anime? Then why would it need to be written about? Did anyone buy the mangas? If they did, they felt it was worthy of notice. "Reliable, third-party sources" are not a requirement. But if they exist, the subject is presumed to be notable. I find it very difficult to believe that you think Strike Witches is not notable, since you've edited the article 8 times and you uploaded images of a map, the characters, and the logo last July. --Pixelface (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please, everyone and their grandmother knows Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is vastly different from the actual meaning. "Consensus" too. Good arguments and very astute investigating though bro. I'm done trollin' here, but I still think the points I've made are valid in context with other deletionist arguments I've seen whether I endorse them or not; they're something I could totally see coming from a lot of deletionists on this site. Later dawg.


 * P.S. I also created the Strike Witches article ;)- Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because some people on here make up their own defintions for "notability" or "consensus" doesn't mean they're right. Yeah, I noticed the article Strike Witches was created by The Norse, who was blocked indefinitely last January. I figured you were a troll from 4chan from your first two edits. --Pixelface (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quickly throwing this onto the record: 4chan isn't my thing, I abhor the place. Their little fads are just really widespread. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability and the Five Pillars
Personally, I think that as long as things are verifiable and are encyclopedic, complying with the (oft forgotten) Five Pillars, which doesn't even mention "notability" (although it is linked to via "vanity press"), it should be in Wikipedia. The first pillar states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be verifiable, with no original research, and with references. It also states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or battleground. And that's about it. Except for that one link, which I don't personally think makes sense, the current notability guideline has nothing to do with Wikipedia's five core principles. The first pillar should be the guide for what Wikipedia contains. It does not say that Wikipedia contains only "notable" topics. And the first pillar also says that Wikipedia contains information from general and specialized encyclopedias, alamanacs, and gazetteers. A specialized encyclopedia could well contain topics which fail the current notability guidelines, and so they should be included per the five pillars. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC) (undent)It has begun. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that a topic that fails WP:N will tend to fail WP:NOT and vice-versa, which is why no good alternative to WP:N has evolved, or a least one that is based on objective evidence and therefore can be used to resolve editorial disputes. This is why I think WP:N should be elevated to being a policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that plenty of topics which fail WP:N pass WP:NOT. For example, Undermountain, currently at AFD due to "non-notability." What part of WP:NOT does it fail (the whole article is verifiable, even if through primary sources in many places, although this is acceptable per the current revision of WP:FICT)? Additionally, it would certainly be contained in a specialized D&D encyclopedia, so why shouldn't it be here? Besides, if everything that did fail N also failed NOT, then what's the point of having both? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, here! Exactly why no one seriously supports notability and why it should be marked as humorous, failed, or an essay as it serves no legitimate purpose, but by contrast is detrimental to our project.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a polarizing proposal that won't accomplish anything, because it will never gain consensus. Randomran (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that "notability" currently has failed to gain consensus, we might as well try. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How has it failed to gain consensus? I see a guideline that's existed for years, and has been applied with consensus in thousands of discussions. The most you can show is that there are times when we might use a different standard -- something you have yourself said above in that we should have an inclusion standard. If you want to build consensus, you're going to have to reach out beyond the inclusionist wing of Wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it has been challenged time and time again and is used unevenly and subjectively in thousands of discussions. There are over 180 eidtors who have a userbox opposing it, many with notes on their userpages denouncing it, essays against it, the common practice of article creation and page views which go against it, etc.  It has existed because a vocal minority push it through, but it in no reasonable reading of reality reflects the actual consensus of the community, which is why a large number of editors supported the name change in the link you provide above and why opinions were all over the place in the RfC link you also provided.  There is total lack of agreement of what "notability" means or if it is even the best way to go about things.  The notion that it has consensus is a fiction.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you therefore proposing that Wikipedia have an Unwritten constitution as opposed to one that is written down and subject to attack? If so, I suggest you make your proposal known at WP:Village pump (policy).--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a written constitution, the Five pillars, Verifiability, etc. "Notability" is like the anti-alcohol amendment, something tried and failed. Perhaps a better analogy is with slavery. For hundreds of years educated people argued in defense of slavery, another elitist and therefore condescending concept. But eventually reasonable people won it even though it took a good deal of determined conflict. "Notability" has been around for a mere few years. If we can get rid of slavery, which had support for centuries, we can get rid something that has lacked support for but a few years. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have about as much luck getting a consensus to get rid of WP:N as Palestinians will have convincing Israel that they shouldn't exist, or vice versa. In other words, it will get you some high fives from people who agree with you, but it won't end the WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I'd bet everything that it will inflame it. A final solution is going to have to be respectful to moderates from both sides. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All I and everyone else has to do is just ignore it, because it clearly has pathetic support and as such no one needs to even treat it seriously as if in even exists. We have some real guidelines and policies, but so long as everyone who disputes this useless guideline acts as if it doesn't even exist, it will be effectively marginalized. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you actually believed that, you wouldn't be trying to convince us that we need to get rid of it, and the guideline would already be ineffective as a tool to delete/merge/redirect articles. So I'm not sure what you're doing here. You've stopped reaching for compromise, and have started using belligerent disagreement as a strategy. Good luck with that. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The compromise is that we have an inclusion guideline called "inclusion guideline" and we get rid of nonsensical use of subjective terminology like "notability." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, or something like that. Trust me that you'll gain more on Wikipedia by looking for the widest possible common ground. Randomran (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Soon, it will end. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With still far less support than the number of editors in the category of those opposed to it, which is why a more correct wording is "trampled under the feet of big brother." Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it time; an RFC lasts for thirty days. Certainly, at any given point views can change. The RFC at WT:FICT is evident of that; there would often be three or four oppose !votes followed immediately be three or four support !votes. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should have been more honest regarding the objectives of the RFC by saying that you want to change Wikipedia into something more like Wikia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it just depends on what kind of content is used. Some material on Wikia could belong on Wikipedia easily enough. Some of it doesn't. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what inclusion criteria dou you have in minde that can distinguish between the material that could belong on Wikipedia, and that that doesn't? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In a Nutshell
This edit was recently made to the nutshell, but it was reverted. I think that this is a valid edit as it is already a widely accepted standard that A) Sources for apparently non-notable articles must be searched for in good-faith before deletion, and B) Deletion of non-notable articles is a last resort, with merging or redirecting preferred. This is established by WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:N itself. In editing the nutshell, it was my hope that this often neglected or forgotten fact (many AFDs, such as this one, indicate that) would be made more prominent, as it should be. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) As regards the influence of WP:N on the discussions at AFD, I must disagree with your view that there is any direct relaitionship, and I don't think we should be attempting to "join-the-dots" between them. In the first instance, if an article is deleted, it is the direct result of a process that defined by WP:DELETE. Secondly, if an article is nominated for deletion, it is subject to peer view during which the participants to the deletion discussion are are asked explain their opinion and refer to their understanding of what they think is policy. Thirdly, pages are only deleted, merged or redirected if the administrator believes there to be consensus to do so. The point I am making here is that WP:N cannot proscribe or directly influence the outcome of deletion debates because this guidline is at least twice removed from the AFD results. If we were to attempt to "join-the-dots", then it would be difficult to provide details of the process, all the exceptions, and influences on AfD discussions. However, I would argue that this is an example of trying to get the tail to wag the dog that has no practical application. You could try reverse engineering WP:N from AFD to guideline, but I think it is just too complex a task to undertake. Lets keep this guideline simple and focus on article inclusion, which is what it is about. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think Drilnoth's edits were very helpful in clarifying the guideline. The only thing I added was that we often redirect or merge non-notable material. Randomran (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just leave it as is. This is guideline, not a set of proscriptive rules. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm... it was just reverted again. Some discussion would seem to be needed; what is the opposing view on this topic? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand it. Gavin opposed it on the basis that it brought AFD into this guideline, but it hasn't done anything that isn't already basically written within the guideline: articles that fail the guideline aren't kept for a standalone article, which usually means a merge, redirect, or deletion (let alone speedy deletion, in some cases). Randomran (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, any reference to deletion, merger or redirect is pointless. The fate of articles that don't meet our policies and guidelines is decided elswhere, and is the subject of peer review, the results of which are determined by consensus at the time. Lets keep this guideline simple and focus on article inclusion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are large numbers of AFDs where non-notability is cited as a reason for deletion without the nominator looking for sources, in violation of numerous policies and guidelines like WP:PRESERVE and, more importantly, WP:BEFORE. My hope with the expansion to the nutshell would be to better describe current guidelines so that they might be more widely seen and followed. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the opposite it true also. The fact is, inclusion criteria are not followed at WP:AFD as you well know. It is the consensus after peer review that is followed. I agree that the WP:N can be used as the basis for an arguement that an article should be deleted, but it does not follow that invoking this guideline is a magic spell ("NOTABILITUS!") that is guaranteed to achieve this result. At the end of the day, participants at AFD are free to ignore the rules, and we should respect this. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's clear what notability does. "If it passes the guideline, it's notable..." The fact that there are common sense exceptions is a given for guidelines. We ought to follow it to its logical conclusion. Linking to guidelines about redirecting, merging, and deleting allow people to put this guideline in context, without getting lost in the details about how/why to delete/redirect/merge. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a topic passes this guideline, it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a standalone article - I think you are mistaken to read anything more into this guideline other than this simple statement. Of course there may be exceptions, but I suspect they are beyond the scope of this guideline because their existence is likely to be the subject of personal opinion, not objective evidence.

General interest
Following the discussion about Notability (fiction) (which isn't closed yet) I'd like to raise here a point that I have raised there as well.

The present notability criteria do not reflect in a direct way a consideration of "general interest". Subjects might be interesting even while they are not very notable. In such a case an encyclopedia not including these subjects would be lacking.

The reason I made this argument originally was because fictional stories and characters etc. are usually of interest to those who have read/seen about them, while mostly not being very notable in the sense of Wikipedia policy. In this context the term "general interest" would be used in reference to those people only: the criteria for notability should be based on notability for the subject at large on one side, and the notability of the story/character to only that group of people that are interested in that subject on the other. As opposed to the present policy which defines notability of all subjects in an identical way.

I think the notability policy should reflect this. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly fictional characters generate a lot of interest on Wikipedia because we have a lot of articles about them. What is not understood by many of the creators of these articles is that these characters are only of general interst from from the perspective of overarching work of which they form a part, rather than being notable in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is intentional. Wikipedia does not treat subjects with novelty value any differently from articles on other subjects. A novel subject may have an article because it has received significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, but then again it's no different from any other article. "Fictional stories and characters etc." are one thing we're not exactly short of, and it's well established that where these don't receive significant real-world coverage we shouldn't be detailing them. Wikipedia is not the only place on the Internet for this kind of content. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, and add that although an element of fiction may appear to be of general interest, it is important to distinguish between a real-world and in universe perspectives before making any judgement.
 * "Fictional stories and characters etc." are one thing we're not exactly short of, and it's well established that where these don't receive significant real-world coverage we shouldn't be detailing them. That's absolutely untrue &mdash; which is apparent from many AFDs. --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely this well established policy that I came to challenge. I think that as soon as an "overarching work" (in the words of the previous post) is established as being of general notability, from that moment on the criteria of notability of any subject from within that overarching work should be based on the group of people that are interested in that overarching work, and only on that group. The logic being obviously that otherwise the information on that subject will be restricted to the most general.

Let me explain: if you are not interested, then "the most general" information will be enough for you. It is for such that the usual encyclopedial artical is written. But if nobody were interested in the subject, no article would be written at all. The article is written because some people obviously are interested in the subject. But for those people "the most general" information will not be enough.

If somebody would argue that the same is true for any encyclopedia, I would counter that given the possibilities of the internet, we can - and therefore should - satisfy the hunger for knowledge not only of the non-interested, but of the interested as well. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankfully, notability is not and never will be a policy and in fact we recently started a poll elsewhere to demote it to an essay given the Category:Wikipedians against notability. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is a guideline not a policy.-- Patton t / c 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to Debresser, I suggest you have a look at the results of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, where you will see there are lots of editors that share your viewpoint about spinout articles, but there is a lot of opposition too. The problem as I see it is that, even with topics "from within that overarching work", Wikipedia still needs some sort of inclusion criteria, if only to avoid duplicate articles and content forks. There are many other other reasons why WP:Notability is needed, but the bottom line is that although many editors oppose it, we are yet to see a proposal for a set of alternative inclusion criteria that dovetails with Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines that would work any better. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have yet to see any reason why "notability" is needed, whereas I have seen clear evidence that it fosters the battleground environment of Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking of this issue of late, and I agree that we need a balance here. There is absolutely no reason we can't cover fiction to some degree (as well as other fields like sports, etc.), as long as we are aware what type of sourcing is available and limit ourselves to covering those areas to a limited extent if there's no additional sources beyond the primary available, and recognizing what reliable sources are for such topics. Hard-line sticking to notability makes this difficult, which is why I think defining when we can break out an included topic into a full-fledged article is a better approach. --M ASEM  17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I sometimes will think of our articles as if they were in a book (yes, I know, I frequently cite the paperless claim, but what I am saying here is different). Looking at my Compton's and Brittanica volumes, you have articles where at the end of the article or sometimes within you will have a whole page that is a list or table (list of presidents, etc.) and so for say video games, something like User:A Nobody/List of Chronicles of the Sword characters would be what you have outside of the main article text but on a separate page to better illustrate that part of the text.  Now as you can see my main source thus far is a published strategy guide, yet, I see a published strategy guide as somewhere between a primary and secondary source.  The game is the primary source made by game makers.  The strategy guide is not quite a secondary source, but is put out by a separate company from the game publisher.  And while someone gets the main gist of the game from the main Soul Calibur III article, those interested in more coverage can go to pages like what I am working on my userspace for a more detailed illustration of the game, which helps readers to understand how the game uses characters, how the characters relate to each other, the kinds of names used in the game, the kind of story-writing of the game, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about the basic problem that fictional plot material is almost all completely trivial from a real-world perspective? I honestly don't see what the big deal is about letting sites like Memory Alpha provide extremely detailed in-universe appraisals of plot elements and characters in particular fictional works, while leaving us to detail them from the point of view of someone sitting outside the television. That way, people can trust that Wikipedia treats a subject seriously and neutrally and assigns due weight to fictional elements, while being able to lap up intricate plot detail in more appropriate venues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like original research to me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank Gavin Collins for pointing me to Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. I see that indeed many share my idea. I agree that defining criteria for notability within a group of people is hard - if not impossible. This is where consensus should be the ruling principle. I also seem to be in complete agreement with M ASEM on this.

Re-evaluate WP:N?
Based on the controversial and sometimes heated discussion at WT:FICT and many AFDs, I think that it may be time to really request comment on WP:N, to determine what it should be and if we should even have it. It is by far the most controversial Wikipedia guideline, and I think that there are a lot of different people on Wikipedia now than there were when it became a guideline, so it might be worthwhile to get some new opinions in one, centralized place. Opinions? -Drilnoth (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree and strongly suggest either abolishing notability altogether, downgrading to an essay, or moving it to Inclusion guidelines or Inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you, this probably isn't the place to discuss what should be done with notability... we should just figure out whether or not there should be a more formal RFC, where such discussion can take place. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I support starting such an RfC. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that opining discussions is in order, but only if everyone is wearing a Flak jacket as it will doubtless be tempestuous. WP:N has too often been used in ways that contravene WP:CSB and WP:Protect. That it should be demoted to an essay or more simply to Inclusion criteria would serve the bettermant of wiki's foundation priinciples. Its time to step back from ongoing obfuscations and simplify to facilitate accessibility and utility of Wiki for all editors... old and new.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Following WT:FICT has been a nightmare, but from what I gather that is mostly because of the influence of this guideline, and apparent inconsistencies between it and accepted practice. Discussion on the issue is warranted. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (responding to Schmidt) Yep; we'd need a nice big "Civility" banner at the top of the page. As I said, this is Wikipedia's most controversial guideline. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If editors feel that nothing can be done to resolve FICT without doing something to WP:N, I've tried to outline how I would change the system to be more amenable to all editors at User:Masem/i (it is a work in progress). Short answer: we need inclusion guidelines, to say when a topic should be included in WP (but not necessarily an article) and article guidelines to determine at what level of coverage that a topic should receive an article. The GNG becomes one of the inclusion guidelines, but not the only one. Inclusion is still based on meeting WP:V and WP:IINFO. --M ASEM 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be best off eliminating the word "notability" altogether. It's simply not a necessary or useful word.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Agree. As The Five Pillars stress verifiable accuracy, and "notability" is a wisp of smoke open to far too much personal interpretation. The infighting at Fict is a perfect example. To put contributions into a harnass of what is important or not important enough kinda flings a raspberry at the pillars.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that in my scheme, "notability" would be a guideline, but only to assess inclusion, but it would be one of several possible inclusion guidelines that would be developed. Also note that we are also limited for indiscriminate information - we do have to put a cap on what is included to avoid that, but we should be much broader in what we do include. --M ASEM  01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly a cap is needed... we don't need an article about My neighbor's dog, unless there is a good reason to have it. However, it should be perfectly valid to have articles on video game characters and the like, even if they aren't "main characters," or have equivalent content in a list for the really low-importance ones. Even the most non-notable, according to the current guideline, video game character will be interesting to some people, and its exclusion detracts from the encyclopedia. However, I doubt that many people would be looking up My neighbor's dog. Anyways, I'll see if I can create an RFC sometime tomorrow or Tuesday. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, anything cover in any secondary sources or reliable published primary sources is worthy of at worst a redirect with edit history intact. The whole allure of the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit is it being a combination of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazettes, which means there's no reason not to cover anything that is covered in pretty much any print encyclopedia, even if it's an encyclopedia of characters.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why inclusion is one part, but "article quality" is another. A minor character is not going to have enough to talk about to establish a full article but can be placed into a list (redirects are cheap).  What has to be made very apparent is that not having an article on a topic but still covering it to the degree appropriate for its sources is an acceptable solution (and much better than deletion or not covering it at all), and that non-primary sources are very important to establishing this "article quality". --M ASEM  02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Masem's idea. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, the quality of an article has no bearing on whether Wikipedia should have an article about that topic. And the word "article" is also problematic. Encyclopedias typically have entries, one after another, in alphabetical order. Wikipedia has webpages. The idea that all of those webpages have to be "full articles" is simply not true. --Pixelface (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should from an editorial standpoint, not notability or inclusion. Articles that are doomed to remain permastubs should be merged to a larger topic.  Articles that lack sufficient sourcing on a topic we should include should be merged to a larger topic.  Topics that, when expanded to make a non-stub article, would otherwise violate our content guidelines should be merged to a larger topic.   Now, we do have to be aware that most articles are works in progress, but if we are going to move away from notability and into inclusion, we need to strongly emphasis appropriate summary style, in which we avoid creating many small articles in favor of grouped articles.  Redirects are cheap and should be used as much as possible to help with searching. --M ASEM  03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I agree with Masem and Pixelface. One fiction example I was looking into shows one problem with Notability as applied to fiction.  I looking for sources for Ms. Marvel (google news search).  Now, while I'm sure that by going to the library and ordering some books, I could eventually prove that Ms. Marvel meets the General Notability Guideline, a cursory news search suggests that Ms. Marvel #35 is notable (an individual comic that Wikiproject Comics would not like), but Ms. Marvel (a 40 year old comics character) herself is not.  The same happens for almost any serialized work.  It is easy to find reliable sources that comment on 100 different episodes of a show, all of which feature a certain character, but never actually discuss the character in detail.  In contrarion fashion, NOTE frequently supports aticles less worthy of notice, while discouraging more worthy articles.  One size does not fit all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with stubs Masem. While your ideas about merging are interesting, they are not shared by the entire community. There is no set rule on when to merge. That is why merge discussions take place. And I've supported merges plenty of times, on a case-by-case basis. If someone wants to learn about a specific topic, why should they have to load an entire webpage full of topics they weren't even looking for? Different readers desire different levels of detail. If you like articles that cover multiple topics, go ahead and make them. It's not an either/or decision between lists and separate articles. Redirects may be cheap, but so are stubs. --Pixelface (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and there would be thousands of unmergable stubs... but that's a diferent discussion. Look to the Pillars... look to the Pillars.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it my gut, but I have a feeling when thousands of "unmergable" stubs exist, someone will come up with an ingenious way to merge them. The wiki is 8 years old now, imagine what it will look like 8 years from now. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? --Pixelface (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Stubs are not necessarily bad, but when you get to a point where no more information can be added to a stub and it is still a permastub, then per WP:STUB "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." There are also cases that editorially merging several small articles to a larger one can make a more coherent article - not just for fiction, but for many other fields like towns and villages, roads, athletes, and the like.  And selection of appropriate container articles can help significantly to avoid the bloat.  While WP is not paper, we do need to worry about page count to editor ratio and future maintenance of the work; if you take 2.x million page with 100,000 active editors in the last month, that means each person had to monitor 20-some pages uniquely to watch for vandalism and improper content.  That's assuming all 100,000 are registered, of course.  That's why merging and using appropriate summary style approaches is important, not as a means to remove content but to improve and maintain the work.  Swapping out notability for inclusion is one step towards that. --M ASEM  04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a stub has okay sources, there's nothing wrong with it. If a stub can readily be sourced, there's nothing wrong with it. If you want to copy information from several smaller articles and combine that information into a bigger article, go ahead. Towns, villages, roads, professional athletes &mdash; those get separate articles.


 * Wikipedia is not paper. And we don't have to worry about page/editor ratios. Currently, the English Wikipedia has over 8.9 million registered users, and around 2.7 million articles. Discounting multiple accounts and ignoring IP editors, that's about 3 editors per article. If you just want to consider editors who've made at least one edit in the last month, that's about 160,000 people. That's about 17 articles per person. If those 17 articles are all in the same category, they can be checked with the Related changes tool. They can be checked with watchlists. They can also be checked with public, shared watchlists. For example, these are the recent changes to the most vandalized pages on Wikipedia.


 * If vandalism is a concern, that's why protection and semi-protection exist. That's why ClueBot exists. What's why RC Patrol exists. That's also why some people want to implement Flagged Revisions or Flagged Protection. Merging is not a barrier to vandalism. With the Related changes tool, it's as easy to check 493 separate pages about individual Pokemon as it is to check 25 lists of Pokemon &mdash; as long as the articles are all in the same category.


 * If someone wants to make the article Characters of Kingdom Hearts, fine. But in addition to that, you can also have articles about specific characters. Merging does not actually improve content. It just re-arranges it. It's just a different way of presenting the information. It's easier for readers to compare and contrast that way. Although merging does keep content safe, if someone is going around acting like WP:N is a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While all these tools may help to watch vandals and for inappropriate additions, it requires nearly constant monitoring and review of the articles. In addition, there are lots of IP that add well-meaning additions to articles but that are either incorrectly done (breaking layout), inappropriate, or already have been discussed to not included by the regular editors of the page; these don't get treated like vandals, they need hand holding to help improve.  And while it may be true that there are 2.7M articles and 160,000 "recent" editors, I would suspect that the actual number of active editors (regularly watching their watchlists and making several edits a day) is a tenth of that, now meaning that we've got about 170 articles per editor to watch uniquely. The number of articles created will always outpace the number of these active editors; that doesn't mean we stop the growth of WP, but we should be keeping future maintenance of the work in mind since there's always editor turnaround.  One way of doing that is to avoid having many small articles that are highly related and instead grouping them together in a single list or table.  Plus, and more importantly, the RFC's of late have all shown that WP:N is not going to be going anywhere soon; there will always be people that see these short articles that have no or weak sourcing outside of the primary work to be invalid and will seek to delete them as long as WP:N stays as it is. A merge of related topics to a list seems to give the resulting list a pass to WP:N (one that isn't defined, yet, but that the previous WP:N RFC suggests is there), compared to each of the smaller articles getting no pass at all.
 * And furthermore, WP's mature enough that while there will still be new articles created and the like, the project should start focusing on quality over quantity but not at the expense of losing information. List-based articles of small topics is a much better way of presenting information than spread across several, as any co-relations between elements of the list can be identified there and the user will not have to follow hyperlinks around and print out multiple pages to discover that.  --M ASEM  15:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Millions of changes is the nature of this wiki. Although perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for Flagged Revisions process would make constant monitoring less necessary. I don't think we have to worry about how many articles Wikipedia has. And it's guidelines like WP:N that turn off volunteers. If a new editor makes an article and it's immediately taken to AFD or prodded for being non-notable and it's deleted, why would they want to stick around? WP:N encourages that behavior. I do think there are a lot of new articles that don't belong on Wikipedia. But "non-notable" has became the catch-all excuse to delete them, as evidenced by WP:PRODLIST.


 * I really don't think Drilnoth was correct to close that thread about the status of WP:N. The discussion needed much wider input from some of those 160,000 recent editors, and it needed to go on for much longer. Perhaps WP:N is not going anywhere soon, but if so, it needs a rewrite.


 * I'm not against merging; it just doesn't offer much improvement. It's fine to focus on quality. But you add quality by adding material and citing sources. Merging smaller articles is just re-organizing. It doesn't make the material higher quality. Sometimes lists are better, sometimes separate articles are better. Lists can be a great way to present information, and yes, it's easy for people to see the relations between topics and compare and contrast. But it all depends. It's not about "passing" or "failing" WP:N.


 * If someone doesn't want to follow hyperlinks around and print out multiple articles (a long list will probably print out on multiple pages anyway), fine, they can read a list, like List of Prime Ministers of Canada. That doesn't mean all those separate articles should be merged into the list. Those are notable people. They're notable because they're heads of government, that's a prominent position. They all have a notable trait in common. I've argued to merge and redirect many articles. But on a case-by-case basis. Much of the time, lists and separate articles are not in conflict with each other. Wikipedia can have both; it's not a paper encyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I am looking at a lot of good ideas, but it begs the question: what is the next step? Ikip (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we need to create a large-scale request for comment, probably in a subpage here. I can probably start one sometime this week, although feel free to initiate one now if you want it started sooner. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus that the general notability guideline is generally good. But even most people who like the guideline concede that there is room to sculpt it around specific subject areas. Not wholesale exceptions, but certainly slightly lower standards that reflect the standards for their subject area. Randomran (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Masem's proposal is just another set of inclusion critieria based on personal opinion dressed up as "consensus" that won't work, because notability requires objective evidence. In the opinionated world of editorial disputes where rock beats scissors beats paper, reliable secondary sources is the only authority we can rely on to resolve differences of opinion because they provide the commentary, context, criticism and analysis that is need to write a good article, whereas less reliable sources or personal opinion do not have the authority to resolve editorial disputes. In my view, there is not alternative to WP:N, which should be made policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that so many people beyond me this time are calling for significant changes if not something altogether shows that there is no consensus behind notability at all. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really a small minority. We've been over this dozens of times. If someone honestly has a good faith reason to believe we should get rid of WP:N, let's just take it to AFD. I wouldn't consider that WP:POINTy, not compared to saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to every failed effort to overturn it. Let's remove all doubt. Randomran (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, honestly, I think that's probably a great idea. But y'all know it will be just a little bit pointy, even if only because of the sheer irony. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And after reading WP:POINT, I have decided it's probably a bad idea and would make many many people very very unhappy with me. Still, tempted, but I think a formal RfC would be a better (if slightly slower) way to go about this. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, really a small minority compared to the thousands of editors who create and work on articles deemed by the vocal minority non-notable and the millions who come here for them, plus the 188 in the category of Wikipedians against notability as well as all those who have opposed it. In the larger scheme of things, the shear numbers of editors opposed to notability is staggering.  Notability is put simply anti-wikipedic if not illogical.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, we can argue about what the community wants, or we can actually put it to the community. We had a watchlisted RFC where a tiny minority of editors felt that all spin-outs should be notable. I don't think there's any doubt that there is consensus for *some* kind of notability guideline. So people need to stop focus on scrapping it -- which will ultimately lead nowhere -- and start focusing on incremental modifications, which many people generally supportive of WP:N would also support. (Including me.) Randomran (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's probably support for some kind of inclusion criteria; I support that, but large numbers of editors do not support notability as people other than me have proposed something else and over 180 even go so far as to have userboxes opposing it. We need to abolish it and replace it with something that actually has real support.  There's no reason why we should feel beholden to such a nonsenical term.  Why not have an RfC that actually provides these options:
 * Wikipedia:Inclusion guideline
 * Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria
 * Wikipedia:Notability
 * "nothing" beyond WP:V and WP:FIVE
 * That other RfC wasn't an RfC on whether to have notability or not and it was about as divided as you can get with opinions and numbers all over the place. If you ask someone do you like green or red apples?  That is not proof that they like apples over oranges because they didn't say anything about oranges and participated in the apple survey.  Now, if we ask people about renames or replacements for notability then that would be somewhat more telling although yet again those who comment on this talk page are still far fewer than the decisive majority who in practice believe these articles to be worthwhile.  Who knows why they don't comment in these discussions, but they do turn up on occasion in AfDs or on admin talk pages baffled when someone tries to delete the articles.  We can cite numbers of policy page discussions all we want, but we can't preten that the reality in practice doesn't exist.  There is no reason not to have an RfC that covers name changes, abolishment, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can agree that we need inclusion criteria, then that helps us make progress. I think that a name change is the kind of incremental change that would actually move the conversation forward. The problem is too many of these conversations start with a small idea that people might agree with, and then a bunch of other people jump in with more polarizing ideas, and we get nowhere. If there's anything we should learn from these repeated conversations, it's that we accomplish nothing when one side overreaches: then the other side responds with a hardened position, and we end up in no consensus. We can learn from the past discussion on renaming this guideline. A lot of the oppose !votes could be persuaded to support a rename if we could come up with a name that doesn't expand the scope of the guideline. A lot of people in good faith think that we already have a lot of policies on "inclusion": WP:NOT and WP:V and WP:MADEUP all talk about what we include or don't include. Whatever we rename this guideline, it needs to make it clear that this guideline is only the first bar to pass, and then other content policies apply. Randomran (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a namechange is worthwhile, as a better set of inclusion criteria has never been proposed. It might be worthwhile changing the status of this guideline to a policy because of its widespread support. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The name "notability" is problematic because it a) smacks of elitism and b) is used subjectively in AfDs. Someone can make an objective argument based on "inclusion criteria" or "inclusion guidelines", but people do not make objective arguments based on notability.  When editors come up with "non-notable", who knows if they are actually reffering to this page or some arbitrary personal standard of notability.  It is quite clear that there is considerable opposition to this page and as such it is downright baffling that it is not marked as an essay or disputed.  Because we already have inclusion guidelines on verifiability, this consensus lacking guideline that suffers from widespread opposition and limited support just seems unnecessary if not excessive and cumbersome guidelines.  The best set of inclusion criteria yet proposed is Notability/Historical/Non-notability.  As is this page currently is a hindrance to building a paperless encyclopedia, which is why people have made far better proposal and why it has widespread opposition and so many calls to rightfully abolish it or demote it to historical or an essay.  In any event, "notability" clearly interferes with our ability to maintain and improve Wikipedia and as such can be ignored accordingly.  None of us are or ever will be bound by it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the argument for a name change isn't to improve or change the inclusion criteria, but to stop confusing people by using a loaded term like "notability". Sophisticated Wikipedians hear notability and think "third-party sources", but the average newbie thinks it's an invitation to argue about how many people care about the topic. And then there are people who focus on importance/popularity/usefulness, in order to avoid talking about the basic need for third-party sources. (I'd personally like to steal the name from Independent sources, but that's just me.) Getting away from "notability" could clear things up, and there are a few prominent inclusionists who would find the third-party sourcing requirement more palatable by another name. Randomran (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as I don't think there is any support for a name change at all. Notability is indeed a "loaded" term: it is associated with quality commentary, balanced coverage, independent perspective, constructive criticism, in-depth analysis and many other positive characteristics of a good encyclopedic article. Furthermore, I never seen a proposal that would could act as an alternative to this guideline that could be used to resolve disputes between editors because all the alternatives to this guideline I have seen are not backed by objective criteria, but by personal opinion which is subjective and open to challenge. The fact is that over the ages, people have gathered knowledge from a multitude of sources, and have always relied on secondary sources for analysis, criticism and context for the purposes of interpretation. In the absence of any other source of guidance (other than personal opionion) as to which topics should or should not be included in Wikipedia, I suggest we continue to follow the tradition of Standing on the shoulders of giants. In fact, since this guideline is such an important pillar of Wikipedia, I think WP:N should be made policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all interpretations of notability that require a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Notability tends to be loaded with judgments of importance, significance, and usefulness. There has to be better terminology that focuses on balanced and deep research -- which is what you're getting at. Truthfully, I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" would be a more accurate name than "notability", because it conveys that this is about research rather than importance. Too bad it's too long. Randomran (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is essentially no real support for the policy as is. We have other sufficient and objective sources of guidance such as "verifiability", the five pillars, etc.  Notability is such a farcical aspect of wikipedia's guidelines that is increasingly apparent it was never intended to be taken seriously.  In fact, I have come to the realization that this page is actually an extended April Fool's Day joke and as such should be marked as "humorous", because in this case, if we continue to support it, then we are not standing on the shoulder of giants, but rather being trampled under the feet of comedians who never intended anyone to take something so silly as serious.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any ideas that will actually gain consensus? Or would you like to keep proposing ideas that will only appeal to one wing of Wikipedians? Randomran (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anything other than notability will be able to gain consensus whereas notability, which only appeals to one wing of Wikipedians, has failed to gain consensus. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey hey hey - hold on there. In my experience the only project-specific notability guideline fork which works is WP:ATHLETE - and it's actually stricter than the GNG in places. I'm certainly aware that there's a lot of noise about reducing our notability standards for the sake of appeasing a minority of editors, but a zero threshold on notability is already the de facto standard in a great many areas of the project - most anime, for instance. Show me an article which would be FA-class if not for our standards on notability of fiction (there are, at this stage, dozens of userfied articles which could be worked on to this level) and I'm prepared to consider than the rules could be bent in some cases. I remain unconvinced that this is going to happen any time soon.
 * As for "notability" itself being a dirty word, well, let's see how well that works. A two-year-long effort to make "cruft" into a dirty word has probably reflected more poorly on the protagonists than on the general standing of the term on WP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have argued before, putting proposals on a policy talk page is really counterproductive. These policy/guideline talk pages tended to be echo chambers full of editors who support the rule. Drilnoth, I suggest you quietly create new ideas about this, then post a RfC. As these talk page arguments show, arguing in circles here produces nothing.
 * I have taken issue with the validity of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise before. The way the questions are set up, etc. Ikip (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Ikip. There is no point in complaining about WP:N for what ever reason if there is no alternative to replace it. For any change to be effected, a better alternative needs to be put forward to replace it, but this has been tried before and failed many times. If you read through the archives, you will see that several proposals have been made, but they more or less boil down to inclusion criteria or exemptions from WP:GNG based on personal opinion (or personal opinion dressed as "consensus"), rather than on objective criteria such as the best source of coverage. WP:N works because it is based on the fact that there is a hierarchy when it comes to source quality, at the top of which sits reliable secondary sources as opposed to less reliable or questionable sources.
 * In answer to Randomran, I don't see how you can get around the idea that notability is a judgemental term. Remember, WP:N is a set of "inclusion" criteria, and the idea of inclusiveness is itself judgemental. You might like to compose a line or too along these lines, but I would not bother myself. If you go to WT:IMPORTANCE, you will see that notability was chose because it is a less judgemental term than most. That is good enough argument for me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Request for comment, this talk page, common practice, the 180+ editors with the anti-notability userboxes, etc. all show that this guideline lacks consensus. Indeed, a good deal of editors actually supported the name change when proposed.  I have come to the conclusion that this page was not meant to be taken seriously and perhaps the best way to go is to not even bother marking it as disputed or failed, but as humorous.  Then we can move on and have a real and serious discussion about inclusion criteria and guidelines as having "notability" be one of them is no different than having "things some wikipedians like" as the guideline.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody: 180 editors with userboxes and however many others who are voicing opposition on this talk page compared to the number of Wikipeida editors actually shows that the overwhelming consensus is in favor of WP:N. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that everyone but those 180 editors are in favor of N? --Pixelface (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, the problem isn't that it's a judgmental term -- of course even our most central guidelines involve some amount of judgment. The problem is that "notability" is a term that isn't a good summary of what the guideline is about, and thus leads to a lot of confusion. When an argument about notability begins, it causes people to make bald assertions of importance, or to lash out against what appear to be assertions of unimportance. Really, we want the discussion to focus on research and evidence. You said it yourself, it's standing on the shoulders of giants: we use independent sources in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a playground for our own theories and biases. Everything you say suggests there's a more accurate name for this guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A nobody, as I wrote above. You are wasting your time. Being the last person to respond to every argument is not a "win", people that post here already have their mind made up.
 * Editors here know eventually you will give up and notablity is still going to be here. Ask Pixelface how effective arguing policy is on talk pages. Ask the dozens of editors in the past who have argued about nobility here.
 * Focus your energy in cultivating relationships and creating strategies with like mindeded editors. Ikip (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Generations before us realised that the best way to advance our knowledge about the arts & sciences is by Standing on the shoulders of giants, and that is true today as it ever was, simply because reliable secondary sources are the best sources you can get for an article and for resolving editor disputes by virtue of the fact they have more authority than editors' own opinions. If you have a better of way of expanding encyclopedic knowledge, then I would be interested to read it, but if you don't, then it is hard to take your complaints of sour grapes seriously.
 * It's not just the name. Myself, I think it almost totally useless, because it confuses the question of accidents of what type of sources happen to be findable by the people here, with suitability for detailed treatment and a headline. Fortunately, its days are numbered, because in a year or two Google books will be able to find such references on anything at all that has ever been in print anywhere, and we'll need something more discriminating than the ability to count as far as 2.  But more fundamentally, I think the entire concept of notability is wrong and unhelpful.  I think we have totally confused 3 different problems:
 * 1 whether the content belongs in Wikipedia at all
 * 2 in what detail the material should be treated
 * 3 whether the material should go as part of a paragraph on a more general topic, as an item in a list, as a section of a bigger article, or as a separate article.
 * We have been concentrating upon the 3rd of these, and it is really the least important of the three. For most topics, it doesn't actually matter from an encyclopedic standpoint whether it should be part of a long article or separate smaller one. Paper encyclopedias have been made with many short articles or with  fewer but longer ones, and they work equally well and have been equally successful, though the trend in the last 20 or 30 years has been to smaller chunks. But whatever difference it makes in print is much less for the web. In print, long articles needed an index; with hypertext, the material will be found just as well no matter where it is or how it is organized. Why then do we even care about what should have a separate article? Basically, because the outside world treats it as a standard of merit with respect to the subject. Many people like to see themselves and their groups and the things that interest them with as big headlines as possible, even if the content is just the same. (This is exaggerated by the increased prominence google or other search engines give to article titles). I would myself, like to see the entire concept of notability removed from wikipedia, and replaced by the separate concepts of suitability, importance, and useful arrangement--by points 1, 2, 3 above.
 * This is not a statement from an inclusionist point of view--I am actually much more of a mergist, and only support many of the articles I do because of the unfortunate fact that in the present editing framework, merged content on certain subjects tends to get deleted unreasonably. Anyone can edit implies not just that anyone can add, but anyone can remove, and removing is so much the easier. Even those who cannot write can erase. DGG (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If google books will soon make it easy to find reliable third-party sources on a lot of topics, then we don't even have a problem. I've always maintained that WP:N is actually a pretty low threshold -- if some reliable source somewhere has said something about a topic, it's notable. I'd be thrilled if we spent less time nominating articles for deletion and more time sourcing those articles. You'd have to be a pretty radical deletionist if you believe that reliably and independently-sourced articles don't belong in Wikipedia. A lot of what you say says we should just stick with WP:N and do some research. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Nobody, I don't think you can say that this guideline does not have consensus, on the basis that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I could understand this arguement if there was better alternative as I have suggested above, but there isn't. You say you want a real and serious disucssion about inclusion criteria, but what is the alternative proposal you are making? I see none on the table, just a lot of complaining and special pleading for topics such as fiction in general, and plot summaries for TV episodes in particular.
 * In answer to Randomran's earlier post, research and evidence are not activities allowed by WP:OR, this is left to reliable secondary sources, so I don't think renaming WP:N is a good idea if you follow this line of thought. We editors merely note what our peers have seen fit to research and study, and use citations of their focus as a basis for article inclusion. I think notability is the best term. When editors get annoyed about the term, they forget that it is not about importance or unimportance, this guideline is about the type of sources which are needed to write encyclopedic articles.
 * In answer to DGG, you still need to have inclusion criteria (item 1) and what better way than to base it on the type of sourcing that is need to write encyclopedic articles? Since commentary, criticism, context and analysis are all need for an encyclopedic exposition of topic, then you you may as well judge a topic suitable by the fact it is the subject of sources that provide this sort of coverage. I think you might be forgetting that topics which fail WP:N are also likely to fail WP:NOT, as to write an encyclopedic article you need encyclopedic content. As I see it, those editors who are seeking to water down WP:N or plead for exemptions for their pet topics are in reality asking for the the scope of Wikipedia to be broadened to allow non-encyclopedic content, and to make Wikipedia more like an Almanac that contains all sum of human knowledge pertaing to life, the Universe and Everything, regardless of its encyclopedic value. In order to do this, you will need to go to the WP:Village pump (policy) and propose that the first of the Five pillars be dispensed with. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) the problem is that most of those topics will not be in any real sense encyclopedia-worthy. There is a good side: we will have material for candidates who lose races for US Senator, & finally be able to establish those articles. But we will also have multiple stories for people who lose races for the city council, and the local board of zoning appeals. We will have multiple stories for the construction not just of major shopping centers, but of every strip mall. We will have sources for every published book, no matter how unimportant. Now, there are some people who think we should include this down to whatever level of detail. I do not. An encyclopedia is considered an encyclopedia if it has a certain standard, that is probably somewhere above that. We already do have rules for handling some of this: One Event, Not Directory, and so forth. In practice, we will need to expand these considerably, and the real standard of notability will be WP:NOT, as modified by what Google happens to have gotten to.  I think this is going about it backwards, and will yield wildly inconsistent results.  Rather, we should decide in a positive way what we do and do not want to include, assuming we have sources. We will still have WP:V, but it will only apply to whether there's contents enough, not whether the contents come from sources that show notability. Gavin, I do not want to do abolish the pillars--I do not want to lower the standards in general. (Most of  us want to adjust them one way or another in various directions, butt that's a matter of detail, not of a basic guideline). I do want to find a way to apply them consistently with the topic, not consistently with Google. DGG (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, you're still showing reasons why we should rename. As you said, people get annoyed with the term when they interpret it to mean "importance". After all, we colloquially think of something notable as something important. When I'm referring to evidence and research, I'm referring to what we use to WP:Verify an article. As you said, notability is about standing on the shoulders of what reliable sources have said, and not about importance. Wouldn't it be better to shift it away from the terminology of importance (consult a thesaurus on "notability"), and towards sourcing? Randomran (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since WP:N is based on the idea that topic is 'suitable' for 'inclusion' if it is the subject of 'significant' coverage from 'reliable' and 'independent' sources and therefore likely to 'satisfy' Wikipedia content policies, it is hard to imagine another name based upon one these adjectives that would not be more judgemental than notability. However, my concern is that a name change would be a thinly veiled attempt to attack WP:N by giving it a name that disparages its purpose, or detracts from the fact that notability is based on the idea that a topic which is the subject of relatively good quality coverage is worthy of inclusion. That is why I would object to names such as WP:INCLUDE, WP:SATISFY or worst of all WP:SELECTION.--Gavin Collins (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No one agrees on what is "significant", which is why "notability" lacks consensus. Editors might agree that we should have some kind of inclusion criteria, but we need something objective. This useless and confusing guideline includes weasel wording like "significant" "notable" etc that people interpret differently and as such it just causes confusion and frustration, which is why I believe it was intended as a joke, because it's just unnecessary given our other more objective and clear inclusion guidelines. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could assume good faith, and help us come up with a name that would enhance, not disparage its purpose. You once called it "standing on the shoulders of giants". Just for the sake of a brainstorm, would you be open to exploring names that convey that purpose -- of covering only what reliable sources have independently covered? Randomran (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I think notability is just fine. It is less judgemental than WP:IMPORTANCE, yet more elegant than WP:INCLUSION. "Notability" is the name that is fit for purpose. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you live with a name change to something like "WP:third-party sources"? I think such a name would make it 100% clear what we need for an article, and drastically reduce any misinterpretation or confusion. Randomran (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or the completely judgemental, but completely descriptive: WP:Article Worthy. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. We're not worthy. We're not worthy!!!. If we choose this name, we can justify putting a big picture of Mike Myres at the top of this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)