Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 38

Intro
I think the intro can be written clearer:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%" width="95%"

! Current !! Proposed
 * -valign=top
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

'''A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines''': Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations &amp; companies, People, and Web content.

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, notability is one of two main principles that determines whether a topic merits its own article in Wikipedia (What Wikipedia is not is the other).

An article requires evidence that the topic is notable, or "worthy of notice." The general principle is to look at how the wider world of credible publishers treats the topic, and whether they have have independently decided to show it significant attention.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or (for topics with specialized requirements) their subject-specific guideline.

Notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. However clear evidence of these may support a case that the topic has achieved wider interest and notability.

Articles can also easily be improved or problematic sections removed. In most cases, whether an article should exist depends upon the topic and its notability, not the quality of writing.
 * }

Main changes:
 * 1) Make clear it's one out of two main principles for topic inclusion (WP:NOT).
 * 2) Logical structure.
 * 3) Tone change to remove redundant wording like "these notability guidelines".
 * 4) Remove lists that obscure the point (list of content policies and list of topics with specific guidance, don't need to be cited in full in the intro).
 * 5) Add explanation of key point: The general principle is to look at how the wider world of credible publishers treats the topic, and whether they have have independently decided to show it significant attention.
 * 6) Clarify that clear evidence of fame/importance (as opposed to vague claims and OR) can be relevant, and the relation of notability to content and why the two are usually distinct.

I think the right-hand proposed version may be clearer to a reader than the current draft. FT2 (Talk 04:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:N and WP:NOT are exclusively the only two policies that decide article worthiness, and in fact would question if NOT is a "main" principle for topic inclusion. (Here's the trick: WP:N is a positive test for inclusion, WP:NOT is a positive test for removal, so they counter each other.)  It is better to mention that WP is designed to not be a collection of indiscriminate information as defined through WP:NOT, and WP:N attempts to meet that by showing a topic is discriminate due to how it is received by reliable sources from the world at-large. --M ASEM  (t) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go with that explanation (notability as the acid test of discriminate coverage).


 * In practice these are the two main tests we use for inclusion - is it within a category deemed unsuitable (WP:NOT) and if potentially suitable, is it notable (WP:N). I agree these aren't the only tests, but that's the meaning of "one of [the] two main principles". So it's accurate, and probably helpfully concise. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good gravy, no. You've completely dropped the text that makes it clear that the guidance does not apply to article content.  That's a huge change that has no basis in current best practise. Hiding T 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all: "In most cases, whether an article should exist depends upon the topic and its notability, not the quality of writing." says it all, and more concisely. FT2 (Talk 01:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That says something completely and utterly different and doesn't make the point that notability does not apply to content in any shape or form. You're inserting a "mutton dressed as lamb" point, while the point you are removing is a "comparing apples and oranges" point. Let's not remove consensual wording and replace it with nothing in its stead. Hiding T 12:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * The topic of a Wikipedia article is required to be notable, or "worthy of notice", which is mainly determined by the breadth and depth of coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Notability is one of two the main principles that determines whether a topic merits its own article in Wikipedia ; What Wikipedia is not is the other.


 * A topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or, for topics with specialized requirements, a subject-specific guideline. Notability does not necessarily depend on fame, importance, or popularity. However, clear evidence of these may support a case that the topic has achieved notability.


 * These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to say that notability is one of two main principles that determines whether a topic merits its own article in Wikipedia. For starters, WP:NOT is only one of seven content policies that define what sort of coverage is allowable. The key ones in this context are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Any other problems? Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the preamble needs to be more explicit about why notability is a requirement:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%" width="95%"

! Current !! Proposed
 * -valign=top
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations &amp; companies, People, and Web content.

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, the term "notability" determines whether an article topic should be the subject of a seperate standalone article. All article topics are required by policy to be "noted", or "worthy of notice" by reliable, third-party sources. The general principle is that an article topic requires evidence that their subject matter is notable, or is worthy of notice if it is to be the subject of its own standalone article.

The term "notability" is not used in its widest to reflect a topic's importance, worthiness or popularity. However, clear evidence of this may support a case that the topic has achieved interest from outside Wikipedia, and could be included within Wikipedia as a seperate article.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines shown on the right.

This notability guideline does not directly limit the content of articles. However, if an article topic is presumed to be notable, then topic must also meet the requirements of of Wikipedia's content policies if it is to be the subject of a seperate article.
 * }
 * I suspect this what both FT2/Fences & Windows are trying to express. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we haven't actually worked out what's broken, I see no value in making changes. Hiding T 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The intro as it stands doesn't give much of a clue as to what we mean by notability and it isn't written as clearly as it could be. It's really the first paragraph that I think needs revising. I was trying to rework the original suggestion without necessarily endorsing it fully. Gavin, your version is a bit too wordy and WP:BURDEN makes no mention of 'worthy of note' so we'd be misrepresenting policy.
 * Notability determines whether a topic should be the subject of its own article. Article topics are required to be "worthy of notice" as verified by reliable, third-party sources. Notability is not the same as a topic's fame, importance, worthiness, or popularity, although clear evidence of these may support the case for inclusion of an article on that topic.
 * How is that? Makes mention of the verification policy and reliable sources, and I think it reads more clearly than the present wording. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from a couple of minor corrections, it's not bad. It needs to be clear it's not the only norm, the expression "is not used in its widest to reflect" is unclear, and "the topic must also meet the requirements of of Wikipedia's content policies if it is to be the subject of a separate article" is slightly incorrect. Making a few minor edits, how does this work for you?


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%" width="95%"

! Gavin's proposal !! Edited
 * -valign=top
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, the term "notability" determines whether an article topic should be the subject of a seperate standalone article. All article topics are required by policy to be "noted", or "worthy of notice" by reliable, third-party sources. The general principle is that an article topic requires evidence that their subject matter is notable, or is worthy of notice if it is to be the subject of its own standalone article.

The term "notability" is not used in its widest to reflect a topic's importance, worthiness or popularity. However, clear evidence of this may support a case that the topic has achieved interest from outside Wikipedia, and could be included within Wikipedia as a seperate article.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines shown on the right.

This notability guideline does not directly limit the content of articles. However, if an article topic is presumed to be notable, then topic must also meet the requirements of of Wikipedia's content policies if it is to be the subject of a seperate article.
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | Within Wikipedia, the term "notability" is a test used to determine whether a topic can be the subject of a separate standalone article. It exists alongside other policies and guidelines affecting article existence, particularly What Wikipedia is not (encyclopedic coverage) and the need for sufficient neutral sources.

The general principle is to look at how the wider world of credible publishers treats the topic. All article topics are required by policy to be "noted", or "worthy of notice" by the wider world, as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, if they are to be the subject of their own standalone article.

The evidence must be of genuine attention by the wider world – "notability" is not based upon importance, worthiness, or popularity, nor upon self-promotion or indiscriminate coverage. However, clear evidence may support a case that the topic is noteworthy within the wider world, and could sustain a separate Wikipedia article.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets the subject-specific guidelines outlined on the right.

This notability guideline does not directly limit the content of articles. However, if the topic is considered notable, then any article on the topic should also be written following Wikipedia's content policies.
 * }
 * FT2 (Talk 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Collins - It's true that NPOV and OR determine what content is allowed in an article, but they have little or no relevance to determining whether an article should exist. (Except in the extreme case that sufficient neutral sources don't exist.) The policies/guidelines that determine for a given a topic whether it should have its own article, are pretty much this and WP:NOT.

This is the second time I've had to point out concerns over your understanding of this guideline, and Hiding's had to do so once as well as expressing concern about poor quality unfounded statements you made in the discussion. If even someone in this debate doesn't understand it clearly, that's good evidence we need to explain it better.

I have rolled back the rest of the revert which was based on an open AFD (now closed) and also your removal (which appears removed abruptly by someone whose posts suggest they may not really understand or appreciate the issue behind it). But I have posted perhaps a better wording of SPIP below. FT2 (Talk 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to FT2, it is correct to say that collectively, Wikipedia's content polices determine whether or not a topic should have its own article, since failing one or more of those policies could potentially result in deletion of an article. Simply put, the presumption that an article topic satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article can only be made if it complies with them - including WP:NOT. For instance, notability can't be used as a veil to hide topics which are content forks or based on synthesis. Underpinning notability is that the content of article cites sufficiently good quality sources to avoid these issues. If a topic fails WP:N, it will usually fail one of more of Wikipedia's content policies (and vice versa). Notability as guideline does not exist in a policy vacuum, its actually underpined by all content policy, particularly the requirement of WP:BURDEN which says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Having said that, I am reasonably happy with you current draft. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry but it isn't correct to say that. Here's why:
 * An article can be non-neutral, based on OR, and lacking all references, and if its topic complies with WP:NOT and WP:N then we would try to improve rather than delete.
 * If it breached WP:NOT or was non-notable then no matter how well written we would (in principle) delete.
 * The sole exception is "so badly written we delete", but even then its deleted as useless, not because its a bad idea for a topic -- and anyone can start again. The revised version could include OR, could lack references, or could include unbalanced material, and yet we'd improve not delete if we could. (we often do so).
 * Does that make clear why "content policies" are not relevant to notability? They are actually, almost completely ignored in deciding whether a topic can exist in its own article on Wikipedia, and always have been. FT2 (Talk 09:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your views still conflict with mine, but I can back them up with specific instances which illustrate the point I have been making. The presumption that an article topic satisfies the general notability guidleine can only be made if it complies with Wikipedia's content policies must be applied in the case of living persons. This becomes apparent if the subject is a controversial figure, as there a clear duty of care to ensure that the article is verified, balanced and is not based on original research. WP:BLP says that


 * "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone".

I think it is fair to say that there is a very close relationship between WP:GNG and content policy, but if a topic is not controversial in any way, the relationship is not stated explicity, but it still exists. In the ideal world, compliance with Wikipedia content policies it is a bye-product of notability, for a if an article topic is the subject of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent, then the article will be balanced, verifiable and free of original research by default. Problems with content policy usually arise where the coverage of say, a living person, is not signficant, or there are not sufficient sources, or those sources are questionable or not indpendent. The general notability guideline and content policy are, in this context, the two sides of the same coin. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So in the case of an article about a notable person that is non-neutral, based on OR, or is unverifiable, it would almost certainly be deleted immediately if these defects could not be rectified in the first instance.


 * You're making my point for me. You're citing two very specific and often quite extreme situations.
 * If there are not just "few" reliable sources, but so few we can't be neutral;
 * If there are BLP issues, and they are so extreme that we can't fix the article.
 * But in both those cases the issues are the same - lack of sufficient neutral sources is fatal to an article (established part of WP:N), and very poor writing - especially on BLPs - may cause deletion (but doesn't mean the article can't support its own topic; the deletion is without prejudice to immediate recreation of the same topic, if written better).


 * By contrast if the topic breaches WP:NOT, or the community firmly decides it doesn't meet WP:N, then no number of sources, and no amount of textual removal, stubbing, referencing, or careful rewriting, will allow an article to exist, full stop.


 * That is why it is accurate to say it is these two (and pretty much these two alone) that determine if a topic can have its own article on Wikipedia. FT2 (Talk 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can twist my words around anyway you want, but without a policy or guideline to support your viewpoint, but the statement that I have made remains valid : the presumption that an article topic satisfies the general notability guideline can only be made if it complies with Wikipedia's content policies, and the text of WP:BLP clearly illustrates this. WP:BLP is not an "extreme" case; it is is an important cornerstone of policy. I think you will find that if a topic fails WP:N, then it will fail one or more of Wikipedia content policies, and vice-versa. It is a mistake to focus purely on WP:NOT, because all the core policies are the basis for WP:N. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of user-space essays
Two editors have suggested the removal of the two userspace essays that have been long-standing on this page: User:Uncle G/On notability and User:Hiding/What notability is not.

Now, there's nothing in WP:POLICY that says we shouldn't be linking to any essay, much less user-space essays, on policy or guideline pages, but we do need to make sure their inclusion is appropriate to the matter and has consensus. There is nothing special about a user-space essay (they can be edited by anyone, contrary to Gavin's rationale for removal), beyond that it exists in user-space. I'm checking with WP:POLICY to see if there's really any difference if the essay is user-space or WP-space.

But we still need to determine how well these essay apply to this. Uncle G's essay has been long-standard, and been used throughout other discussions elsewhere to help editors to understand notability, so removing it just because it is in userspace is a rather poor reason. Hiding's essay, while less detailed, does explain things that those that are involved in this guideline are well aware of and know that the guideline points to, but that may not be obvious to newer editors, and thus is also appropriate to include. Neither attempt to overstep what WP:N describes, only clarify it in the larger picture of WP. --M ASEM (t) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets put all the essays in a category and link the guideline to the category page. That way if the list of essays keeps on growing in future years, then they won't clutter this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to keep both here. I think  Uncle G's provides a good historical sense of where WP:N came from, and I find that highly relevant.  Hiding's I've not looked at closely for a while, but remember thinking it also helped. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I see no good reason not to include them. Uncle G's, in particular, is practically required reading if you want to try and wrap your head around the notability concept.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Kubigula. It was Uncle G's essay that helped me the most in understanding notability when I was new here. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a clear boundry between an essay and guideline needs to be maintained, otherwise we are getting into the realms of instruction creep. The number of essays and alternative views about notability are useful and relevant, but they are not part of this guideline, and sooner or later, their number will increase until they exceed the space taken up by WP:GNG itself. If anyone wants to add an essay to the Category:Wikipedia essays on notability, contraversial or not, then can now do so without having to seek agreement here. I think you will agree this is a much more elegant solution by eliminating a lot of cruft from this guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters if that does happen. As long as each essay offers something unique. True, we should probably seperate essays from the rest, but Wikipedia isn't paper and if there are that number of essays with different viewpoints it might show something about this guideline. Stopping such relevant linking in a way is trying to enforce the idea that this guideline isn't that controversial and there aren't that many viewpoints, both pro and con about the guideline or specific items within it. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea. Those essays in user space that people find interesting, be bold and copy them into Wikipedia space, leaving the original intact.  It's license allows that, it's CC-whatever it is, after all.  Then, someone knock up one of those fancy templates so we can list the essays across the bottom of the page to address the space concerns. That way, everyone wins. Hiding T 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see Uncle G's being done as its been around long enough and no one should mind, but what about Hiding's? Also unless those originals were deleted, we'd still have 2 variants of the same essay floating around that could diverge over time for no other reason than minor edits adding up. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Divergence isn't that much of an issue. You could even ask Uncle G and Hiding if they mind their essays being moved into mainspace and see what they say. Hiding T 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the real issue is that User:Hiding/What notability is not is pretty much absolutely wrong in every respect, and contradicts this guideline on many points. Linking to it from here will just confuse people. Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much absolutely right in pretty much every respect, given that was what was in my mind when I added the appropriate wording to the guidance. But perhaps you know better, having been here at the time? Hiding T 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I acknowledge your belief that your views are absolutely correct, I disagree. Your essay does contradict this guideline in many fundamental ways.  For example, while this guideline says "Notability is not temporary", your essay says "Notability is not permanent".  That directly contradicts this guideline.  Perhaps what you meant to say is that "consensus can change", however, that's not what you said.  While it might be useful to editors to link to essays that explain this guideline using different words, linking to essays that contradict the guideline is obviously not helpful. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I agree that this guideline contradicts our policy on consensus. How do we fix that then? Because having guidelines which contradict policies isn't very helpful at all, is it. We're going to have to think about this one. Hiding T 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this guideline contradicts our policy on consensus. Apparently you are agreeing with yourself, since I neither said nor implied any such thing. Dlabtot (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) This guideline does not in any way, under any valid interpretation, contradict our policy on consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have to talk me through what you meant when you said that this page guided that notability is not temporary, while we have a policy which states that consensus can change, and also how the two equate. Hiding T 17:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The two don't equate. Notability is not temporary. Consensus, however, about what is notable can be wrong. Therefore it can change. It's not the notability that changed, it was the consensus that changed.  That is why we are using two different words, 'notability' and 'consensus' to describe two profoundly disparate concepts that do not in any way 'equate'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they equate, because every decision on Wikipedia is made by consensus. The notability guidance is a result of consensus, it is not, as you assert, above consensus. Per the guideline tag at the top of the page, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Since the consensus is that exceptions apply, since the consensus on Wikipedia is that we decide through consensus, I cannot understand your assertion that notability should be considered something immutable, when consensus is otherwise.  Hiding T 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your failure to understand what I'm saying. Dlabtot (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, I did not assert that 'notability is above consensus' and I did not assert that 'should be considered something immutable'. Dlabtot (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your words state something different, since you say "Consensus, however, about what is notable can be wrong." Here you have clearly raised the definition of notability above consensus. Can you clarify that statement please. Hiding T 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly neither said nor implied nor used words that could be reasonably inferred to mean that 'notability is above consensus'. I again acknowledge your professed failure to understand my comments, however, I don't believe they need any 'clarification'.  All I did was restate WP:CCC. Dlabtot (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Claims that notabiluty affects every section in an article
A discussion is underway at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55 discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic has devolved into notability discussions claiming by several people that this guideline applies to every section of an article, specifically plot sections. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

SPIP
The reverted wording of SPIP was long and wordy. Shortened as follows:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%" width="95%"

! As last discussed !! Shortened
 * -valign=top
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | == Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity ==

In some instances, publication in a reliable source is not actual good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Self-promotion, promotional activity, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not good indicators of 'the world taking note'. The barometer of notability is whether people who are independent of the topic itself and its promoters (and without undue promotional activity or other influence) have actually considered the topic noteworthy enough to select that specific topic from among its peers, and have written and published non-trivial works of their own focusing upon it.

Common cases:
 * Some smaller newspapers, especially local papers and narrow-focus magazines, will include a short article based upon a source's promotional literature or payment. More substantial newspapers may be likely to reject stories of low interest (see WP:NOT).
 * Some reliable sources cover their field of interest with little or no discrimination, so that any topic with a connection would be unusual not to gain some kind of mention. Notability cannot usually be evidenced by such coverage.
 * Most topics can gain some kind of 'reliable media' placement fairly easily (a branch or store opening, a "places to eat" section, a 5th anniversary or a show at a local club, a new product, etc). Critical review is needed whether the material evidences discrimination by the publishing medium and attention by the world at large.

Sufficient neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written &mdash; self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Autobiography and Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
 * style="padding:10px" width="50%" | == Self promotion and indiscriminate publicity ==

In some instances, publication in a reliable source is not actual good evidence of notability:

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. The barometer of notability is whether third parties in the wider world  have independently considered the topic significant. Paid material, self-promotion, solicitation, and product placement are not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

Credible writers who have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter – are good evidence, but the nature of the material must be examined to consider if it shows genuine independent interest, or is more likely to result from indiscriminate coverage or promotion.

In particular:


 * If an interested party could readily obtain similar coverage by promotional activity; or
 * The publisher would grant similar coverage to many or all venues, groups, products, people or entities in the field, without evidence of much discrimination; or
 * The publisher seems unlikely to have carefully verified the published article's factual accuracy

then the resulting text is unlikely to be good evidence.
 * }

"Neutral sources needed to write an article" is rarely overlooked by AFD participants and is also stated elsewhere at WP:N. Better, Hiding? FT2 (Talk 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you still have not addressed the concerns of SmokeyJoe and myself, namely that this section mixes up the requirement for "reliable sources" and "independent sources", and that it is repeating what is already being clearly said in the body of WP:GNG. I won't revert your changes any more, but I think you will find that this section will not get support for these reasons if we seek wider comment and put it to an RFC. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs both, not just one or the other. The evidence must be a reflection of wider views, so we need it to be someone else's independent view (and for clarity, published in an independent place), and it must be able to be relied upon factually, so it needs to be a reliable source.


 * The problem is that there are entire huge industries built up around "getting your view printed somewhere credible". It's important to emphasize that we need it to be not just in an independent venue, but it should be an independent view, and to set out (as other policies/guidelines do) the main occasions that's going to be suspect. FT2 (Talk 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more, but WP:SPAM specifically address these issues in a comprehensive fashion, so there is no point in trying to rewrite that guideline here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPAM tends to be read mainly in a context of "clear and unambiguous spamming", rather than general discussion on notability evidence. It makes some similar points, of course, but I would still include it here as it affects notability evidence and discussions. I can't count how often we see "It's in reliable independent sources hence notable" or some such. We want people to think about the evidence value of the independent mentions (= do they show wider attention), not just whether independent RS coverage exists (no matter what it may evidence upon critical review). We just aren't explaining it well at present. FT2 (Talk 10:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you raise an RFC if you feel this so strongly? I am sure there are many other editors that agree with this view. Lets see what the general consensus is on these points. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, defining this much here should not be done; this should be done over at WP:RS, with a line here mentioning that such sources aren't sufficient for notability. --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is too closely involved with notability. The problem is that this isn't really about "what is a reliable source" (WP:RS). This is about being clearer on the need to carefully evaluate material even if coverage is within an independent reliable source, to see if it is actually able to evidence notability. FT2 (Talk 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed this section once more as there is clear disagreement about the need for this section, and invite FT2 to initiate an RFC. If you don't wish to do this yourself, I am happy to kick the process off. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted, per WP:BRD, to the version by Hiding which was the consensus-established version. As Hiding pointed out in an edit summary, this has been written in the guidelines for years. Typically when we discuss making changes to long established policy/guidelines we let the preexisting version remain while the discussion is underway.  My personal opinion is that I support the inclusion of the ideas that FT2 was getting at, and I oppose the removal of the ideas proposed by Gavin Collins. I feel this way because I read the notability guidelines as a means to prevent the promotion of nonnotable subjects.  The link between this guideline and our spamming guidelines is definite and it should be pointed out in both guidelines. I also think an RfC regarding the wording of this may be in order as there are several different possibilities here, yet there hasn't been much community input so far. Them  From  Space  18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Let's put it this way, considering the section of WP:V at WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", that the claim of notability would fall under that (after all, it is a go/no-go for an article), and thus sources of questionable reliability - including self-pub and promotional sources - would not qualify.  All we need to do is point to existing advice about using these sources in a reliable manner (which may or may not be the case) and reaffirm that reliable secondary sources are needed. --M ASEM  (t) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't support FT2's shorter version, because it states that The publisher would grant similar coverage to many or all venues, groups, products, people or entities in the field, without evidence of much discrimination. This is too vague. I don't see how it scales to specialist publications. I also don't find the third useful since it seems to reiterate WP:RS which is linked to in the first line of teh section "General notability guideline". As yet I haven't seen a good case argued against the current page. Perhaps we should first discuss what is broken so we can work out what to fix. Otherwise we open the door to every editor and their particular hobby horse. How does the current guidance fail to make it clear that promotional material does not convey notability? FT2's changes would amend current guidance, because they would limit the current guidance, as can be seen in the conflict between the proposed text and the current guidance that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
 * We can't subjectively decide which "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" count. That makes a mockery of the thinly agreed consensus. Hiding T 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability (news events)
An RfC on promoting this proposal to a guideline is here. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Schools
I came across this article Vanarts about a school in Canada it was created in March this year and as you can see contains one sentence, is it a case with schools that they exist therefore they are, surely their is some notability needed for an article on a school. So should this be merged or deleted? BigDunc 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an overwhelming consensus that most schools are notable, although I would argue that private schools need to be treated more as businesses than as schools and some loosened form of WP:ORG would apply to them. I realise that I am in the minority here, but I would see more usefulness in redirecting the school to a higher-level article, perhaps within the town it is located.  Them  From  Space  19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it grant a 4-year degree or the equivalent? Is it accredited? Is it stand-alone, or if part of a system or chain, unique enough to be considered stand-alone? Is it at the "level" equivalent to a 4-year college in the United States?  If so, it's pretty much a free pass, but there are probably isolated exceptions. Anything less, such as a community college, non-degree-granting institute, trade school that doesn't grant accredited bachelor's degrees, or is part of a system or chain in a way that's more identified with the chain than as a stand-alone school, then it needs further discussion.   For what it's worth, the analog at the K-12 school is a school that grants high-school diplomas that are generally accepted as such.  Very few schools meeting this requirement would be deemed non-notable if taken to AFD, although special-purpose schools like schools for youth who misbehave or schools for those who have dropped out and are returning might fail at AFD, as they typically lack things like sports programs or other non-local significant media coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I get an outside opinion on this comment?
Can I get an outside opinion on this comment?
 * You may have a point. It might be that his books are notable but not him. Is their significant coverage of him in multiple independent RS that is not primerily about one or more of his books? Carl Sagan has books and scholarly articles in RS written about him (not just his books), does Tarnas?

This idea strikes me as inherently absurd. It seems to me that any RS which discusses an author's books thereby discusses the author. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out that WP:PROF presumes that authors of well-cited works (which the books appear to be) are generally considered notable. --M ASEM (t) 16:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) The context is missing, but the idea is not absurd. There is nothing absurd about an encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary. Encyclopedias structure their content so that related topics are discussed together. In the case of a notable but not extremely notable book there will only be enough material for (at most) one article. Whether it should be named after the author or the book depends on various factors, such as which topic is primarily discussed by the sources; or in the case of two similarly notable books by the same otherwise not notable author it might make sense to merge the two book articles and name the result after the author. (Not sure if we do the latter, but at least it seems a good idea if there isn't much material.)
 * More formally, the principle is that notability is not inherited. A book isn't necessarily notable because it was written by a notable author, and conversely a book doesn't necessarily make its author notable. Hans Adler 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it the same thing as N?
Hi.

I saw this on the page WP:OVERCOME:

"Suffice to say that, when Wikipedia was started in 2001, if someone had started an article about Akon then, it would probably have been speedy deleted for lack of notability, and with good reason. Even in 2004, when the first draft of the article was written, someone might have argued that it was too soon for such an article (and it probably was) ." (emphs mine)

Maybe there's something I'm just not getting or I'm just too paranoid, but is the criterion that determines that it would have been "too soon" (which the essay "concurs" with) the notability guidelines (if they had existed at that point), or something else? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is at least sligtly off. Not meeting notiabilty is not a speedy deletion criteria. The closest is A7 but that is a covers articles not having a creadible claim of importance which is specifically stated to be a lower bar that notibility.--76.69.170.31 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sufficiency
I've gone ahead and been bold, and I'll discuss my justification. The text I've added is this: My reasoning is simple: not only do we want Wikipedia to be complete, we want it to be accurate. Some things will appear to be notable, but not truly be. Something can be mentioned in a technology article as a rumored product that never materializes. A blogger says something witty about a subject, but is never quoted again. I am not suggest we constantly need fresh sources, but we do need enough sources to continue to have a reasonably accurate picture. Until such sources can be found, what may have appeared to have been notable may not be, and we certainly have no business writing about it. I believe what I am saying here is not particularly revolutionary, and in fact reflects common sense.--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sufficient sources" means there must continue to be enough reliable sources from which a reasonably accurate article can be constructed.
 * I've gone ahead and boldly reverted. The other items in that list refer to components of the statement of the GNG, and this one does not. If there is consensus to reword the GNG to include this concept, then the concept can be explicated in some manner such as this. Bongo  matic  04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Assuming you do, what do you disagree with about what I've written above?--Tznkai (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will assume you mean, "what would I disagree with in (a) changing the text of the GNG to include the concept of 'sufficiency' and then adding an explication of that concept?", because otherwise the question doesn't make sense as I already explained why this addition to the explication of the existing statement of the GNG is not correct. Given that, then:
 * It is a concept related to verifiability, which is covered in a separate policy, not notability;
 * No rationale has been presented for its necessity (e.g., examples of topics that satisfy the current wording but fail on this criterion); and
 * It lacks consensus, which is necessary for a change to such a fundamental component of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
 * Hope that helps. Bongo  matic  05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying, disregarding the procedural opposition, what, if anything, about the substance do you disagree with?--Tznkai (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you consider the first two bullet points to be wholly procedural, then you will have to be satisfied solely with procedural objections from me. Feel free to try to develop a consensus on the merits if you feel it's important and appropriately addressed here. I certainly would be interested to know what gap you seek to bridge. Bongo  matic  05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I in fact do see them as procedural, since you havn't actually told me if you agree or disagree with the statement "there must continue to be enough reliable sources from which a reasonably accurate article can be constructed." The gap is that if there is large interest in something right now (say, a video game) it appears to be notable. And three years later we look back and find out it didn't matter much at all, and no one is writing anything about it, and we can't say a single accurate thing about it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you using "continue" to mean that there would have to be new, contemporaneous sources about a topic at all times subsequent to the creation of an article? If that's the case, then of course I disagree. Most historical biographical entries fail this standard. There is no conceivable way that the members of the Wikipedia community&mdash;even those who think there is too much fancruft here&mdash;would agree to such a standard. Bongo  matic  06:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I mean adequate to write accurately, not constantly updated. Historical biographies are nice because their subjects are dead, and they're not going to be doing anything significant that would threaten the accuracy of the article. If however, lets say we had an article on John Doe, the up and coming Boxer, who is getting all sorts of notable coverage in 2004. Five years later, no one has said a peep about him, but its not like he hasn't done any boxing in the intervening period, he's just no longer interesting to reliable sources. In response, we should axe the article.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That proposal is not reasonable. There are many people who go out of coverage after their period of notable activity (either until they receive an obituary, or forever). To be accurate an article doesn't have to cover all periods of a person's life. Bongo  matic  06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be implied by WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, among other things. But lets not make it about people. Lets make it about television shows, or products. What I'm saying is, if coverage slips to the point where we have a hole in reliable sourcing over a relevant part of a subject, it is impossible to write accurately about that subject. That means, generally that the subject isn't actually notable, it merely appeared to be so.--Tznkai (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your views on notability are far outside the norm. Despite not being recently covered, The Eveready Hour is notable. In every field there are examples (probably the rule, not the exception) of topics that are reported widely for a period of time, and then less, and then not at all save in encyclopedia entries. Bongo  matic  06:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, they have adequate coverage, I can tell because there is a whole article on it. I'm talking about the articles where all the sources are from three, four years ago and can only support a stub, or an article speculating on an already passsed future. It is not the absence of recent coverage in general, but the absence of recent coverage that conveys accuracy that I am worried about.--Tznkai (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your hypotheticals are changing too much to make this a useful discussion. Before, your example about John Doe was that he was " getting all sorts of notable coverage". That implies enough to go beyond a stub. Then, with respect to a TV show, you said it was only lacking "reliable sourcing over a relevant part of a subject". I think most editors would say that the part lacking sources is by definition not relevant. Again, the implication is that during the period of coverage, it was getting coverage in quantities that would permit an article longer than a stub. There's no need for an article to speculate about an already passed future&mdash;it can simply observe that coverage dried up, or whatever happens to be known. Bongo  matic  06:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The hypos aren't changing, I believe you're not understanding them. The continuing emphasis is on the was. I'm trying to describe situations where reliable sources can support an accurate article on a subject in that subject's early stages of probable notability, but as time passes, it becomes clear that there are not enough sources to maintain that article with sufficient accuracy. Transient fame, if you will. (I'm also not sure if we can even make the claim that sources have dried up without a reliable source supporting the assertion of an absence of coverage).--Tznkai (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better way to explain what I am saying is that an article can only exist so long as we have enough sources to keep it reasonably accurate, complete and up to date.--Tznkai (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea to make it clear that a subject is not notable if there are not sufficient reliable sources to write it accurately. A lot of editors get it wrong and press for keeping articles on barely notable topics which will never consist of more than unsourced information. But the proposed implementation (defining of the term "sufficient sources", which does not even appear in the sentence to which the list refers) is defective. Hans Adler 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What scenarios are you trying to cover?
 * Detailed information available to make a non-stub article at one point in time. Insufficient coverage commencing at some point in time making it impossible to document subsequent developments for the topic.
 * Sufficient information to verify the one-time notability of a topic, but insufficient for anything beyond a stub. No further coverage contemporaneous with the coverage establishing the one-time notability, preventing the further development of the article to more than a stub. Insufficient coverage commencing at some point in time making it seem implausible that the article will ever be able to be expanded beyond a stub.
 * Other scenarios that I may not be correctly comprehending.
 * Case (1) is the poster child for "notability is not temporary"&mdash;such articles should be kept. Case (2) is the poster child for a more strict interpretation of "significant coverage" (preferably resulting in immediate deletion, rather than waiting to demonstrate that the limited coverage ceased), or failing which, a different fix (not necessarily in the manner you describe). However, much as I agree that many examples of Case (2) should not be included in an encyclopedia, I do not believe that view reflects the consensus around here. Bongo  matic  08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess in your framework I am thinking of cases (2) and (3). Here is what (3) can look like in practice:
 * A single event is somewhat notable, but for some reason a crucial part of the coverage, although available, cannot be used in the article. An article based only on the usable coverage would be a tiny stub or severely POV. Some possible reasons:
 * BLP concerns.
 * There is a consensus among editors that the information is false or misleading, but due to a lack of formally reliable sources we cannot present the truth. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy for discussion of a concrete example. Wikipedia's internal processes clearly established that what the media wrote about the Wikipedia events was totally wrong. This was also a BLP matter.)
 * Legal reasons. (See Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber for an example that happened to the German Wikipedia. For us it's less likely but still possible.)
 * Hans Adler 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (3) is rare, but tends to cause a lot of drama when it occurs. (2) is caused by defective notability guidelines (such as the one for books, see examples in the next section) or just by deletion discussions being overrun by inclusionists.
 * The situation has changed a lot since the GNG and the deletion process were originally conceived. We may have reached the point where it makes sense to have a prod-like deletion process for topics for which there are insufficient sources for a proper article. E.g., if I see such a stub or unsourced article I look for sources and add them to it. If this fails, I add a template that makes the article deleteable without prejudice after 6 months. We would also have to make sure that creator, significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects are informed. The template may only be removed once the problem is solved, e.g. by adding adequate sources (not necessarily using them) or by merging. In some cases ("I will be in Katmandu next summer. I am sure Katmandu University Library has a book that will help us here." / "It's not clear whether to merge A+B+C and 1+2+3 or A+1, B+2, C+3. The RfC is scheduled to end in 3 years' time.") the deletion can be delayed. Hans Adler 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary - interpretation
The phrase "notability is not temporary" needs some interpretation.

When there is a "flash in the pan" event which causes an article to be created and someone quickly puts it up for AFD, it usually boils down to "notable" or not.

If the AFD results in a consensus that the item is notable, that is a consensus opinion, not necessarily an objective fact.

If, 3 years later, the same article goes to AFD, it find itself deleted by a chorus of "NOTNEWS" "ONEEVENT" and other cries of non-notability.

It's sort of like the difference between asking a Southern Baptist and others with similar "once a Christian, always a Christian" viewpoints, "are you saved/are you a Christian" then 5 years later you say you are not: Either you have been for the last 5 years, or you never were, but nobody really knows which for sure. Likewise, in the hypothetical article above, we may not know objectively of the article is notable or not, or even of "notability" can be defined objectively for non-clear-cut cases, all we know is that at the time the article was created it looked notable, and 3 years later, it did not. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, consensus can change, it can be wrong about objective reality, that doesn't mean that there is no objective reality. Dlabtot (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is tightly connected to all the goings-on around the Events SNG. I have two key concerns with WP:NTEMP.
 * Firstly that it has dual, complimentary, but distinct meanings. The section starts off talking about how something that wasn't notable at the time, might become notable later - ie: a notability 'score' is cumulative. Perhaps an event, trivial at the time, unexpectedly has a subsequent effect years later, and only then is the original event realised to be notable.  This is the 'notability increases but does not diminish' argument. As davidwr points out above, the community consensus assessment of notability can change over time (in either direction), but this is not the same as objective-reality-notability. Then the section switches to the other (trickier) meaning - that fleeting perceived importance is not to be confused with notability.
 * Second, the very concept of notability not being temporary, clearly stated in this section, is nowhere in the GNG definition. My personal feeling on this is that by referencing the SNGs into the GNG definition, the Events SNG can usefully and comprehensively replace the second meaning, and WP:NTEMP can focus on properly considering the additive nature of objective-reality-notability.
 * I hope that made some sort of sense - I'm not optimistic...
 * —Jaymax (talk)
 * Following on from recent discussions (here and here) in the archive, the idea that notability is not temporary is effectively an extension of the requirement in WP:GNG for "significant coverage", i.e. routine news reports on their own do not confer notability because they are a matter of record only, and do not contain significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that does confer notability. Perhaps it would be clearer if soemthing along these lines was actually stated in the section WP:NTEMP, and then it would more clearly understood and accepted. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why only in WP:NTEMP - I'd say put something like that straight into the GNG def'n of significant coverage --Jaymax (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because WP is not just an encyclopedia but also incorporates elements of a gazetteer and an almanac, there is no requirement that sources must provide "commentary, criticism, or analysis" of article topics; the policy level for inclusion is "not indiscriminate". This still precludes much routine coverage, but I would suspect there are topics out there where the only type of coverage will by factual in nature yet the events are sufficiently rare that inclusion is generally automatic with or without the commentary (hurricanes, for one) --M ASEM (t) 11:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (apols for comment re-edits) I disagree.  If a hurricane is to have it's own article, it should WP:RS WP:N WP:NOT have secondary sources talking about it.  Nothing stops 'non-notable' hurricanes appearing in their respective season list articles (almanac style).  But to get it's own article, a hurricane MUST be notable - and it doesn't get to be so just by existing. --Jaymax (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Masem as well. Whilst Wikipedia incorporates elements of a gazetteers and almanacs, it only contains standalone articles for those elements that are notable. There is indeed a requirement that sources must provide "commentary, criticism, or analysis" of article, or otherwise we would simply have articles on every News agency report recorded as a matter of routine ("dog bites man" and vice-versa). Notability cannot be established by barebones record of events - there has to be some form of commentary, otherwise it has not been truely "noted". This is what WP:NTEMP is effectively saying: if a rountine news report does not contain significant coverage, then its not notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NTEMP also means "once notable, always notable". So long as the topic actually once was notable, we keep the article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no objective reality, that's the whole thrust of WP:NPOV. Hiding T 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting viewpoint, although of course absolutely wrong. Yes, we don't attempt to tell people what the Truth&#0153; is, rather, according to  WP:NPOV, we describe all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources.  That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as objective reality! LOL Our policies are designed to help us write an encyclopedia, they should not be viewed as a means towards understanding the world. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Changing relationship of GNG to specific notability guidelines
I believe that the common practice on Wikipedia is that for articles that fall under the umbrella of a specific notability guideline, such as WP:ATHLETE or WP:MUSIC, the article must conform to that instead of the GNG. As evidence of this, a few of the specific ones are more strict than the GNG, such as WP:FILM and WP:EVENT.

With that in mind, I would like to propose the following change in the lede of this page: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets must also meet the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines, if applicable: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

If there is some measure of support for this here, i'll open an official RFC on it to attract a wider consensus. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand your proposal correctly, you are wanting to properly word it so that the specific notability guidelines cannot be used to declare something is notable if it does not also meet the GNG? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is to clarify how the guidelines are used in common practice. In essence, when an article falls under a specific guideline, then it must meet that guideline to merit inclusion. For example, a film that meets GNG but fails WP:FILM would not merit an article. The rationale behind this is that the GNG is very blunt and far-reaching, and more precise guidelines are better for certain types of articles. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific problem with applying WP:GNG to articles about events is that WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, overrides it. That's why we need WP:EVENT, to explain the intersection of the various policies and guidelines as they apply to events. In the same way, WP:BLP1E is policy and so overrides WP:GNG for articles about people in the news, which is why WP:Notability (people) is useful. WP:N needs to reflect that there are other policies that may override keeping an article despite the existence of extensive press coverage of the topic. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is probably one of the most misunderstood and misapplied policies we have, which is partially why I wanted to create WP:EVENT. I think GNG should be the default, except when an article falls under the umbrella of one of the more specific ones. A crowbar is a great, versatile tool. It'll do a lot of things, including (awkwardly) remove screws. However, when you have a screw that needs to be removed, a screwdriver is a better tool. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in common practice, people presume that if something meets the subject specific, WP:GNG can be ignored, particular with stuff like MUSIC which allows songs to be declared notable for an article without any significant coverage if it made 99 on any top 100 chart. And people have repeatedly tried to declare books to be notable because they are "best sellers" even if no one has written a single review or word about them. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for my edification, can you provide an example of a 'best seller' that has never had a single review or word written about it? Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Salad Days (manga) only one reliable source found, but declared notable based on presumption of notability. Dragon Quest Retsuden: Roto no Monshō best seller declared notable because it was a best seller, despite lacking significant coverage beyond its being a best seller. Dragons of Summer Flame, another best seller kept purely because it was a New York Times bestseller for a single week, despite there being no reviews or other coverage of it. As of that AfD, the only "sources" for it are still only its own publicity and notes that it was a best seller. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd. One of the articles you cite as being about a topic that has no reviews written about it, includes a 'Reception' section that references a review. Frankly, I find the assertion that many 'best-sellers' have no reviews or other coverage to be far-fetched. Dlabtot (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the links? The first is an audio book seller's description, not a review. The second doesn't exist anymore but was an interview with the author. There are, in fact, many best sellers without reviews in reliable sources. Go down through the USA Today and NY Times lists sometimes. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply incorrect, like most such arguments about notable materials lacking sources. If something is a bestseller, it assuredly has plenty of reviews out there. Even books published by mid-range publishers with a minimal marketing budget will usually get multiple reviews. They may not be easily available online, but that is a world apart from having "many best sellers without reviews". It may require a library visit or a database subscription charge, but the sources are more than plentiful. Not being able to find sources online is not the same as not being able to find sources. Vassyana (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, in fact, correct. Paying for reviews is not the same a legitimate reviews and coverage. And plenty of folks have access to university journal databases, go to libraries, etc, including me. What isn't there, isn't there. Being a "best seller" does not mean instant reviews, particularly on the subject specific lists. I've found reviews for books from 1919 that were not best sellers than finding even one for some of today's modern ones. The market is heavily saturated these days. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the correct criterion, which everyone here is shorthanding to "has reviews" is "has reviews in reliable sources". This is (like any review at all) not guaranteed by being a bestseller. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  05:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) A bestseller that completely lacks reviews in reliable sources would be completely against the norms and common wisdom of the publishing industry. It would send a buzz throughout the publishing world as major news in the industry. Publishers and agents would be scrambling to figure out the situation. Literary critics would be scrambling to reassert their worth and position in the publishing world. It would be seriously world shaking stuff. Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be a fairly uncontroversial change to reflect what is already common practice. At AFD, if an athlete meets GNG but fails ATHLETE, it is likely to be deleted on the basis of failing ATHLETE. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this depends on the guideline. I don't have chapter-and-verse handy but in the past I've seen guidelines that said they are subservient to the GNG, and other guidelines say that they in effect overrule GNG.  Leaving it like this and modifying any guidelines that aren't specific is probably the best approach.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If individual guidelines say that they are subservient to GNG (and there is no consensus to change that), then that's fine. However, a few of them are more strict, and that should be allowed. Is there a way to compromise here, and allow both options? Some of the specific guidelines were written because GNG is too permissive for that type of article. The Wordsmith Communicate 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c)I would disagree, and ask for examples of this. Here, here, here, here and here are direct examples. This closing comment reflects actual practice where the closing admin states "the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline". The current practice and consensus is that specific guidelines cannot override the GNG. They merely provde guidance as to when supporting sources can be presumed to exist.  Jim Miller  See me 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason we have the lede worded this way is simple: The special sub-guidelines were not made to replace the GNG, they were created to supplement it. If a subject does not meet them but meets the GNG then it's notable enough for inclusion. Not every subject of a certain kind meets the requirements of the sub-guidelines but they can still meet GNG. Regards  So Why  19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That conflicts with the specific guidelines themselves, some of which are intended to be more restrictive than the GNG. Since we have two guidelines that contradict one another, and neither one can overrule the other (since they're all guidelines), we need to hash it out here and resolve the conflict. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording suggests that a topic may be notable if it fulfills WP:GNG OR it may be notable if it fulfills one of the SNGs. In other words, the specific notability guidelines are more permissive than the general notability guideline. If anything, I think the SNGs should be more restrictive. Location (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the change that Wordsmith has suggested. The specific notability guidelines may be more restrictive than the general notability guideline, however, they may not be more permissive than the general notability guideline. Location (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading John Z's comments below regarding Morrie Schwartz, I think I am beginning to understand part of the opposition to this proposal. The current wording suggests that it would appropriate to keep an article that does not pass the GNG. The new wording, however, suggests that it would be appropriate to delete an article that does pass the GNG and WWIN. Location (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * x4 I agree in principle, I will entirely agree that GNG is the best point of attack as an umbrella. As editors, we're better suited to assist on troubles on V than GNG since we're not going to be as familiar with a subject than the author. Worries though... a lot of articles hop back at GNG based on a pretty straightforward requirement met off a list, but they still need another hook on top? How is anything under A7 (in particular) going to meet GNG in any other way than its met WP:N child topic/project/consensus notability guidelines? Especially in areas of BLP or specific contention like WP:PROF has been it'd make things all the more complicated sometimes. Why am I worried this would just result in even more anger on deletion of things people take most personally-- things they're related in.
 * What about certain places where project standards are far higher than normal GNG? Kicked to the curb? Deleted for some reason regardless? What about something that's a foolproof consensus duck test but we just can't find any resources for? Stubs? Stubs under projects? Ug. Too tired for this. Relaxing GNG could help, but then more "random" articles not affiliated to anything could sneak in.
 * I think it's worth blanketing reminders of GNG on creation pages and project notability pages, and perhaps repeated in new sections on WP:N child articles as a polite reminder to users to not just look at the article in a more narrowed scope, but we seriously need some wiggle room. This change would seem to override massive amounts of consensus within a lot of general subjects. Sad thing is, I agree with the change 100%, but how much total harm does it do the community and encyclopedia in general? This might need a bigger forum to discuss on.  ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this proposal will allow specific guidelines to be more restrictive than GNG. Some of them are already, but this conflicts with this page, which says they're not. Since all of them are guidelines, none can overrule the other, so we need to clarify the relationship between them and correct the contradiction.
 * Also, I do intend to hold a wider discussion on this. This thread is more of a pre-RFC, to see if there is any degree of support for this idea, or if i'm out of my mind. If it turns out that there is a significant group of editors that support a change, then i'll open an RFC. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * daTheisen, If there is a consensus that the SNGs do not trump the GNG, I would like to see a reminder on each notability page that states that their guidelines are not more permissive than the GNG. Location (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My take is simple, N is the principle guideline and the sub-guidelines are subservient to N - so anything that meets the GNG is a keeper. Below that, the sub-guidelines may well have a view on other automatic notability inclusion standards that will assist AFD and editors in reaching the conclusion that an article is bound to be notable. Sitting above all this is V and BLP so material retained in the 'pedia must be verifiable and can be deleted if its not. BLP1E or fleeting mentions in the press like political candidates in other words can overrule N. We should not, and cannot, have a high inclusion threshold outside the need for material to be verifiably true and not meaninglessly harmful to a living person. Easy! Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This, I think, is one of the best statements thus far, IMHO. Notability, needs to be verifiable, and non-harmful to the subject of the article.  If there is insufficient "significant coverage", or multiple notable mentions (which is not always a guarantee of notability), of the subject then they fail notability due to lack of verifiability.
 * Notability is notability, other SNGs may attempt to be more strict, but SNGs fall under NN and thus must hold lower precedence then NN when decisions regarding notability take place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "Anything that meets the GNG is a keeper". Unfortunately, GNG by itself does not address verifiable items that receive "significant coverage" but are not appropriate for the inclusion. Some of the SNGs attempt to resolve those issues. Location (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it clear that V and BLP over-ride GNG as they are policies so the comment on being a keeper is modified by that but otherwise I think its consistent. I suspect NOT also applies as its a policy too. My view is that the subordinate guidelines are there to deal with specific types of article but cannot set a harder inclusion threshold then the overarching ones set by V. BLP & NOT. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at what the SNGs say about the relations between them and the GNG: Hans Adler 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * academics: [...] meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. [...] This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines [...]
 * books: [...] a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to books [...]
 * criminal acts: [...] intended to explicate the notability guideline with regard to criminal acts.
 * events: [...] intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news.
 * films: [...] a specialized version of Wikipedia:Notability, applied to films [...]
 * music: [...] a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs.
 * numbers: These guidelines on the notability of numbers address notability of individual numbers, kinds of numbers and lists of numbers.
 * organizations and companies: [citation from WP:N] This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC.
 * people: ???
 * web: This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia.
 * conditional support - change must to should also - that fits much better with terms like 'explication' and 'guideline' --Jaymax (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would oppose this change. One of the strongest elements in creating a reliable encyclopedia is to have a universal set of policies and guidelines.  This is why I'm usually reluctant about citing SNGs in deletion discussions and usually only do so as an additional point on top of the GNG. Some SNG's (ATHLETE comes to mind) are in due need of repair and they shouldn't be treated as being clear-cut in their fields. Also per Spartaz, my view exactly.  Them  From  Space  23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The acid test is what happens when you appeal a deletion and DRV is very clear that meeting the GNG is sufficient to have an article irrespective of what the individual sub-guidelines say. Whatever the language on these the reality is that DRV does not allow them to overrule N. I would support editing all sub-guidelines to reflect that they are subordinate to GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I would support editing all sub-guidelines to reflect that they are subordinate to GNG." Hear, hear! It would also be nice if the "subordination statement" used on them was consistent from page to page. Does anyone oppose this idea? Location (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - there are people who argue that articles about athletes do not have to meet WP:ATHLETE if they can meet GNG. I think that should be a mistaken view, and this change would fix that problem. Racepacket (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - some SNG's contain arguements that certain topics, like professional athletes, roads, inhabited places, politicans and TV schedules are inherently notable without having to provide any verifiable evidence to support this view. This is a highly subjective standpoint, as it cannot be substantiated in every case, for example when there is no coverage at all, or where coverage is insubstantial or is taken from other tertiary sources. In my view, if a topic has not been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG, then it ain't notable. The only guranteed defense against deletion is to provide evidence that the topic is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a reason for supporting, not for opposing. The point of this proposal is to ensure that those SNGs who are stricter than the GNG are allowed to be so. If you think other ones should be stricter as well, then that is something that should be brought up at the talk pages of those guidelines (I would certainly support eliminating the idea of inherent notability, as would many other editors). The Wordsmith Communicate 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a misunderstanding. SNG's are not actually stricter. They just eliminate those sources which do not provide significant coverage, reliable or independent sourcing in a more specific way. SNG's should actually reinforce WP:GNG, not deviate from it.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This suggestion is not what it seems. Look a the lede in WP:ORG and the "Basic criteria" in WP:BIO. Theses are recapitulations of the GNG. So, for these two (major) areas, the proposal would have no effect at all. The concept is also highly ironic, as the genesis (so I gather) for some or all of the topic-specific guidelines was to come up with criteria that were good predictors of whether the GNG was likely to be satisfied with existing (though as-yet unidentified) sources. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm completely opposed to this proposal, if something meets the main notability guideline (and is not against a policy) then there is no reason why we should not have an article on that topic. Subject specific guideline should not be stricter than the main notability guideline, as meeting the main notability guideline means that there is enough coverage to allow an article to written, which is (or should be) the purpose of notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely opposed because it ignores the history. The GNG grew from the SNG's and is therefore subservient to them, not the other way round.  The GNG is a link of commonality, but not a necessity.  It's very damn good at what it does, but it isn't always the best tool to use in gauging inclusion, which is why in some areas consensus has formed on alternative paths. Hiding T 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which SNG indicates that a topic does not need to meet GNG? Location (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current situation and wording is fine.  The change is unworkable and would have absurd results.  The SNG's should be considered as interpretations of the very vague GNG, not things which could possibly conflict with it. Morrie Schwartz perhaps would not meet WP:PROF, but as the subject of a bestselling book, indisputably met the GNG; exclusion under WP:PROF would be absurd. If there's a book about a film project that never got to principal photography, it is absurd to exclude it. In practice, if something satisfies any notability guideline according to a consensus, it is considered notable and kept, and in practice the SNG's are generally used to be more permissive than the GNG (considered strictly). The SNG's are only used to exclude when the GNG shows marginal or worse notability; they're there to make informed choices in such cases, while trying to be consistent with commonsense ideas of notability and the GNG.John Z (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just plain wrong Edward Heath would be non-notable (say) under ATHLETE. Or someone falling under several of these specific guidelines. Or maybe a  research assistant discovers a cure for cancer and fails PROF? The specific guidelines are meant to be time savers - a presumption of notability.  Failing one does not make something non-notable, passing it makes it very likely notable.  Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Edward Heath certainly passes WP:ATHLETE which states, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport." See BBC history which demonstrates the great notability of his sporting achievement.  The fact that we can differ so widely on the applicability of these tests, shows the futility of trying to rationalise them.  Each case should be judged on its merits as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We work by consensus, and we have rules, some more rationalised than others, through consensus (not least, we have WP:IAR). Each case will, as now, be judged by the community on its merits, with regard to the rules.  To assume that we can achieve a rational outcome regards a particular case, but not THIS particular case, seems fatalistic to me.  Widely differing interpretations is what keeps the game interesting.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no general rule It is different for each of the guidelines, and needs to be discussed separately. the WP:PROF guideline, the most accepted of all the special ones, was deliberatesly writtten andis deliberately specifiedas an alternative, to deal with the problems of sourcing that appear in this field. Others may be different: I would, for example, argue for BOOK being more restrictive. The guidelines can say. There is a fundamental confusion here: WP:GNG is not WP:N. WP:GNG is one of the criteria to use for WP:N, the default criteria. We could totally remove any mention of it, and WP:N would still be a valid guideline. We couldrely on it entirely, but that producedsabsurd results in both directions--which is why we have the provisions of NOT, which are in general meant to override the GNG and even WP:N.

Possible alternative approach - Tweak the GNG
The GNG states: ''"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.''

The key first part of the project-page body, defining the GNG, might be a better place than the article lead to think about how the explicating policies could or should be interact with the GNG, rather than treating them as isolated alternates. I suggest that SNG's should inform the presumption of notability in the GNG definition by altering the para quoted above accordingly. Or that the GNG should somehow otherwise directly reference the SNGs--Jaymax (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What it needs to say should be closer to how it actually works for most of the SNGs. The guidelines are only there to simplify working on an online encyclopedia when the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online. The GNG is our working interpretation of WP:V which tells us that sources have to exist to qualify a subject for inclusion. The SNGs tell us of specific cases where we have generally found that sources exists, and it can be presumed that they also exist in similar cases. We know that people who have won a significant award in their field get written about. Although it may not be verified, it is verifiable and satifies WP:V. We WP:AGF that the secondary sources exist in print, but have simply not been located yet. The SNGs are neither stricter nor looser than the GNG, just more specific. And our conflict is not between the GNG and WP:NOT, but between WP:V and WP:NOT - two equal policies which leave us in a "know it when we see it" mode decided by consensus.  Jim Miller  See me 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Jim, the GNG is not related to V. Regardless of anything else, we need sources to write an article--it overrides any concern about notability. Appropriately, WP:V is policy, and notability is a guideline. V is basic to a trustworthy encyclopedia.  N is not basic--we could have many different levels for many different sorts of encyclopedias. Whether the subject is worth writing an article about is the province of WP:N. The GNG is one way of determining WP:N.  It is not just a presumption. I think using it in a prominent position is a mistake, partly because of the confusion with WP:V. N should be stated in positive terms: the following sorts of things are suitable for Wikipedia articles. The practical reason we do not do that is that we simply do not agree on this, so in practice we use what sounds like a guideline where we do not actually have to say.     DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The relationship with the several specific notability guidelines to the general notability guideline is complicated. Under the GNG, just about every porn star becomes automatically notable.  They're the stars of independently distributed films or the subjects of independently magazine articles.  (Insert laugh track.)  Consensus is that despite this kind of mere verifiability, we don't want articles about each one that can be confirmed to exist.  Other notability guidelines like the one for businesses and products seek to cull the field more than the GNG does: it discounts routine announcements of products, mergers, acquisitions, or hires; and local, trade, or investment related publications of "limited interest and circulation".  Within past weeks, I've been working on a proposal for software that will require either notice by non-technical general interest publications or recognition of historical or technical importance.  I feel that these stricter standards are quite urgently needed whenever the prospect of commercial conflict of interest exists.  We don't want to be a free web host for business PR people or porno fans who are, in their several ways, just blowing their own horns.  So these SNGs are deliberately stricter than the GNG.  They go past merely being a judgment on what's verifiable by sources, and in fact exclude verifiable subjects.  They represent a judgment of what within these fields is really an encyclopedia subject.  Other SNGs may be different.  This second proposal seems closer to the mark in terms of recognizing this, but perhaps some kind of indication needs to be made at each SNG. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firming up my thinking on this, I firmly (subject to any good argument otherwise) believe that (one) SNGs are subordinate to the GNG, and should basically LIMIT topics that might otherwise sneak through the GNG. (two) that the relationship between SNGs and the GNG should be formalised (even if not per one above), and that the hierarchy is that the GNG is the parent.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brief argument based on the ignoring history point above. It should not restrict us from creating an all-encompassing GNG(with SNG's), just because some SNGs came first. Rather, as in many aspects of our human-universe, the appearance of many is a good driver to review and revise the structure, to establish hierarchy, to look for and formalise for consistency, such that the chaotic evolution might continue apace, less impeeded by the chaotic evoloution of the past. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Substantive or Significant?
Side note - the 'Presumed' GNG para talks of substantive coverage, but clearly(?) is supposed to be reflecting the phrase significant coverage that appears twice elsewhere in the GNG. It should be consistent - Is substantive or significant better? --Jaymax (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does substantive mean anything different to significant? That kinda means non-trivial or in-depth and that's a matter of judgement looking at the specific sources. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they do, but subtly - via dictionary.com (best defs) substantive "of considerable amount or quantity"; significant "important; of consequence" - I'm not picking a preference wrt this - just arguing for consistency.
 * Actually, also, substantive "possessing substance; having practical importance, value, or effect" which is very similar to significant --Jaymax (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Substantive applies to stuff that has substance, but coverage is an abstraction in this context. Significant coverage works fine in my view, and should be used consistently.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ Jaymax (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Military Service and Decorations
There has been a rather long and convoluted argument regarding the notability of our men and women in uniform and the decorations they receive. I entered the argument when an article I had written regarding my father, who was twice awarded the Silver Star and three times the Bronze Star with the valor award as a Special Forces Army Ranger (LRRP) in Vietnam, only to have it deleted because the Silver Star is not considered to be notable in of itself, as per WP:BIO. I can certainly understand that everyone in the military is noteworthy enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. I think that there is very little understanding of what exactly is required to qualify for something like the Silver Star, and while I admit that much of my reasoning is based on my disagreement regarding consensus regarding the article on my father, I'll freely admit that as it stood it was not up to snuff. It needed editing, but the reason for deletion was that the Silver Star is not in of itself notable. When discussing notability, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that any winner of the Medal of Honor is notable enough to merit an article. I argue that both the Distinguished Service Cross and the Silver Star, as the second and third highest honors a member of the military can earn for valor & heroism in combat are sufficiently notable in of themselves that they establish notability for the purpose of writing an article about the person. To those that want to apply a "Professor Test", I direct you to the stated criteria already established for automatic notability as per WP:BIO. Using the current criteria, there are two female soldiers that have been awarded the Silver Star whose only other claim to being notable is that they are female. I have nominated these articles for deletion under the logic that being a woman nominated for a non-notable award does not make one notable. However, I have a problem with the fact that according to the current Wikipedia policy, had either of these women stripped for Playboy, rather than serve heroically in the military, they would be notible for for nudity, but not for heroism. Make the Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross grounds for automatic notability. Rapier1 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Rapier1 wants is for awardees to be granted this presumption of notability, but in the absence of significant coverage from a reliable secondary source, that would not make sense and, in any case, is prohibited by the fact that Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. I would encourage Rapier1 not to think in terms of which rules should be met just to qualify for creating stubs, but concern himself with writing good articles. Articles without significant coverage from reliable seconadary sources offer very little to the reader. A good article will always be fully compliant with WP:GNG in both form and spirit. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) At the time of writing, the stub Mike Milchin offers little information to the reader, which begs the question, why would you want a standalone article about a topic for which there is no or little coverage? Although Wikipedia contains elements of tertiary sources that specialise in such stubs, like sports almanacs and directories, I think it fair to say that they have lower inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. The inclusion criteria for any topic is notability in accordance with WP:GNG, simply becuase it is not possible to write a decent article about a professional athlete without significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is about informing the reader with information, not a mere listing of barebone facts. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number of awardees in WWI and WWII, I don't think the DSC will ever be a "free pass" for notability. The Silver Star certainly won't.  The female awardees are notable because the off-wiki press considers it notable that a woman earned these awards. I will look at the AFDs but I fully expect to mark them as "keep" after a news archive search. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an automatic notability, for there needs to be significant coverage from a reliable secondary sources in order to write an encyclopedic article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is, however, de facto or presumed notability, where lack of notability has to be established for deletion to occur. If I say "John Doe was the President of North Elbonia in 1972-1974" and I cite the official, primary-source copy of his inauguration, I meet WP:V but not WP:N.  However, even without third-party sources to indicate nobility, nobody will delete it without a discussion that starts along the lines of "I never heard of this guy. I did some research.  Yes, he was President but the country was pretty much lawless at the time and the Presidency existed in name only.  Could not find any coverage from independent, non-trivial sources.  Trivial mention in some tables in the CIA Factbook and similar sources.  Delete as not notable or merge with North Elbonia."  There are many other topics besides leaders of sovereign states which have "presumed" notability.
 * By historical wiki-practice, diploma-granting American high schools tend to fit into this category, even though just about every small town has at least one. A high school is presumed to be notable unless its established through discussion that its not.   Very few go down in AFD.  The reason is that the vast majority of high schools do meet WP:N, due to significant third-party non-trivial coverage in the media.
 * I think what Rapier1 wants is for awardees to be granted this presumption of notability. That's not his call, that's the call of the media and publishing industries.  When it comes to WP:N, Wikipedia takes its cues from them. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but article inclusion and article deletion are seperate processes, and have different rules and rationales. A topic that is notable in accordance with WP:GNG can be included in Wikipedia as a standalone article; topics that have not been the subject of reliable, third party sources tend to get merged or deleted in the long run. I disagree with the example in which you suggest that high schools are presumed to be notable, because nowhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it say that is the case; last time I looked, Notability (schools) was designated a failed guideline proposal.
 * I picked schools as an example in spite of, or possibly because of, the failed proposal. Without a guideline, I had to rely on past practices and consensus-gathering discussions to establish that there is a de facto consensus that high schools which grant diplomas are notable, except when they aren't.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus regarding the notability of schools in terms of article inclusion, otherwise it would be in the guidelines. Whether a school is kept, mergered or deleted at WP:AFD is a different ball game, as often these choices are made for subjective reasons, rather than strict adherence to accepted policy or guidelines. The bottom line is, there is no such thing as a "free pass" to article inclusion, although some editors with pet topics would like to think otherwise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The outcomes of AFD form a sort of "case law" in Wikipedia. See Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you david, it was my intention to spark debate and bring this issue to the fore. Just to clarify however: 1. I never presumed to state that it was "my call" that these people should or should not be presumed to be notible. I'm bringing up the topic for discussion, as suggested per wikipedia policy, and I'm stating my opinion. If the consensus is against me, that won't change my opinion, but I'll abide by that consensus. 2. These are not "service awards", as you mentioned on Sgt. Brown's talk page. In the United States military, a "Service Award" is given to all members of the mlitary who participate in a particular action. For example, there is a Sea Service Ribbon service award for any member of the military while stationed on a vessel at sea. There are "Campaign Ribbons" that are awarded to all personnal who serve during times of National Emergency. There are "Commendation Medals" and the Bronze Star which are for "sustained acts of heroism or meritorious service" and "bravery, acts of merit, or meritorious service". The Silver Star is awarded for "extraordinary heroism", is only ever awarded for combat duty, and is the third highest award the United States hands out for combat service. While many of these awards have been issued, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are only earned under the most extreme situations and are rare when compared to the overall military composition. There is a good deal of press each time one of these awards is earned by a soldier by their regional press. Just because CBS, ABC, and NBC choose not to cover the valor of our troops, that does not make the incident any less notable. Gavin, you presume too much without first communicating. I fail to see the logic behind the argument that a person who risks their life and performs an act of "extraordinary heroism" doesn't meet an equivalent standard for notability as Mike Milchin, Paivi Meriluoto, Rudy Svorinich, and Susie Scott - who all rate a page. However, I have no intention, nor would I support, using this criterion of notability to foster the creation of a number of stubs. All articles written would still have to conform to wikipedia standards for quality and accuracy. Many of those I mentioned are stubs themselves, and when I have time I'll be happy to clean them up, but we need to have a uniform set of standards. I got pushback when I attempted to apply a standard that I had been involved in setting (although I was on the losing side of the argument) to the article Silver Star awardees and it's various links (starting with Jocko Abramovitch, which has since been deleted) and continuing with Sgts. Brown and Hester. Once that pushback started echoing my own opinion I brought the argument here. This is a discussion and an attempt to form a consensus, nothing more. Rapier1 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think Mike Milchin warrants a standalone article either. This sort of proves my point: in absence of any coverage, what is the point of creating an article if it provides no information other than that the subject exists? In my book, stubs such as these fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and inclusion criteria such as WP:ATHLETE just does not have a leg stand on if there a complete lack of decent coverage for a particular sportsperson. It is just not possible to write an article for an encyclopedia without providing the reader with context that comes from significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis, which is why I oppose the presumption that notability can be "automatic". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So your opinion is that the standards set out by WP:BIO are inadequate and should be modified. One can easily state that there is plenty of source material on Mr. Milchin in various sports journals and newspapers - after all, any professional athlete would have been a standout for some time and would have coverage in the sports sections of several newspapers.  Keep in mind that sources need not be on the internet.  Adding biographical information (early life, amateur career, life after baseball) would move it from stub catagory.  That would easily satisfy the requirement of "providing the reader with context".  Once the article is no longer a stub, WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE would be satisfied and there would be no issue.  You can make the argument that they shouldn't be in, but my point is that according to our current standards, every major league baseball player over the course of the last 120 years is considered notable, along with every professional football player in the last 75 years - and all the other pro leagues.  All I'm asking is that, provided similar detail is given and proper references cited, our military heroes be granted the same courtesy. Rapier1 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, WP:ATHLETE and other "automatic" inclusion criteria are just too subjective to be a credible basis for inclusion. You can ignore my opinion if you wish, but there is a lot of evidence to support this. For instance, one can easily state that there is plenty of source material on Mr. Milchin, but that is a common agrument based on crystal ball gazing. Secondly, rountine news stories, such as barebone match reports don't automatically confer notability on their own - see WP:NTEMP for the reasons why.
 * Understood, and I agree that the article needs work. My point is much more simple.  Wikipedia is not a mere listing of barebones facts, but it is also a work in progress.  Not many articles go online perfect.  If you ever find one, let me know.  If I understand you properly, you are stating that the article itself should not exist.  I am stating that according to our standards, the article stands, and should be expanded upon when possible to make it more encylopedic. Back to the main point, the same criterion should be used for war heroes Rapier1 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in the main, but be advised there is no "automatic" criteria for inclusion, whereas there is for deletion (see WP:CSD). The only guaranteed defense against merger or deletion of an article is to provide evidence of notability for a topic.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Katherine Hepburn: "In a world where carpenters rise from the dead, there are no absolutes.", but while there is no case for "automatic" notability, WP:BIO clearly states that there are generally accepted standards. That is the point I am addressing with my request. Give war heroes the same consideration that the nearly 20,000 men that have played in Major League Baseball currently have. In the case of being awarded the Silver Star (and therefore, by definition, being a war hero), surely that is just as notaable, if not more so, than being a Bronze medalist in the Olympics or being Playmate of the Month. Rapier1 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not use WP:ATHLETE as a precedent; just because other stuff exists in Wikipedia without a valid rationale, that does not validate "automatic" inclusion on the basis of subjective importance. Sure, its a worthy proposal, but I think you will find it runs contrary to WP:MEMORIAL, which is quite a sensible prohibition. Notability is not everybody's favourite guideline, but like death and taxes, nobody has come up with an alternative. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) (17:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, I'm using several issues that are listed as general guidelines on an official Wikipedia page designed for that purpose. My argument is that there is another criteria that belongs among those generally accepted guidelines.  I believe that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was intended to apply to WP:Pokémon Test-type issues, and not the rules of wikipedia itself.  As to this being of subjective importance, we aren't exactly talking about a knitting circle either, so that argument is rather spurious, don't you think?  Finally, since WP:MEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others.", that doesn't really apply to this argument either.  The article I'd written regarding my father (for example) was deleted on those grounds (and in hindsight it should have been, or at least heavily edited), and I have no problem with that.  My problem is with the argument that the notability of war heroes and their deeds is somehow lessened because it isn't on the 6:00 news. Rapier1 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(od)I'll link this AfD which showed that a Silver Star alone did not confer notability as there were no WP: Reliable Sources for the soldier who had received it. The link also shows my viewpoint, but to summarise: I disagree that getting a Silver Star, DSO, or other such award should confer automatic notability; everything should depend on reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument here isn't sourcing, it's notability. If someone can provide the original award certificate, announcements of the award in newspapers or military journals, photos of the awarding ceremony, etc..., then sourcing isn't an issue.  Sources need not be online, only in the public domain to be considered legitimate and confer verifiability.  For the record, to dispell any WP:COI concerns, the article on my father was deleted because it was written too much like a memorial, and I'll agree that on those grounds alone it should have been deleted, or at least heavily edited by a third party.  My issue here is not that article, it is the idea that our war heroes and their deeds are not notable because the mainstream media isn't writing stories for national publication.  I'll state again: Acts of heroism in combat are (in my opinion) at least as notable, if not more so, than playing 26 games of Major League baseball 30 years ago, or taking off your clothes and posing for Playboy. (See: WP:BIO)  I'm not arguing verifiability, I'm arguing notability. please don't attempt to sidetrack the issue. Rapier1 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, there was a long discussion about precisely the notability of Silver Star or other second-order bravery decoration winners here. The consensus then, and it still seems to be now, is that second-order bravery decoration winners in of themselves are not notable. First-order; yes, but others, no. I agree personally with the opinions on Playboy models and one-season football players, but that is really a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which doesn't carry much weight. Basically I believe the consensus is against your viewpoint. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rapier, but those are all Primary Sources, the use of which is very restricted on wikipedia, for good reason; per wikipedia's very rules, ie WP:GNG and so forth, if we don't have reliable sources, usually secondary or tertiary, then they can't really be used, unless in some kind of supporting capacity. Whether we like it or not, servicemen who win such awards don't get written about in secondary reliable publications as much as sportspeople or Playboy models; it certainly isn't very fair, but that's life really. Besides, as was said very well in the AfD I linked, if these servicemen (to take Silver Stars as the example here) were given articles, we'd have more than 100,000 articles, 99% of which would never be more than stubs, as said servicemen would probably have done much more than win the medal and go home. Skinny87 (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Military History wikiproject has recently developed a notability guideline for military people which discusses the kind of medals whose awardees can be assumed to meet WP:BIO. It's available at WP:MILMOS. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction, it's an essay, within the guideline WP:MILMOS, due to lack of consensus to elevate it to guideline level.
 * That being said, one can argue that based on WP:ANYBIO someone who has been verified by a reliable source reference to have been awarded a "notable award", that they would have meet notability. However, as we have seen in past afds, which as has been set before, have set precedences, WP:ANYBIO is not as significant as WP:GNG or WP:BIO and is often trumped by it.  As stated in WP:BIO articles that do not meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria or WP:GNG will often be merged (if not deleted). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why shold reciving a certain medal make you braver then some one from an organisation that does not award them, but still requirtes you to risk your life? But (almost in support of the petitioner) there is a poijnt for those who revice mutilple awards of a lower level. But there also has to be significant third party coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Automatic inclusion on the basis of awards is just too subjective, and we could argue for weeks about it. Even if a subject has won an award for bravery (such as a Purple Heart), there may be insufficient coverage to write an article about that person, which is why it won't work. The benchmark for inclusion is significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, but it is also what is needed to write decent articles. I think there has too be recognition that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose subject matter is determined by notability, rather than military honours, because articles are regulated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelins which are more or less geared towards content, not medals. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gavin - automatic guarantees on broad categorizations alone i'd not support, which is why I think WP:ATHLETE needs to go.
 * However the issue above is not quite the same; its an award and we use awards as signifiers for presumption of notability in multiple SNGs. However the question is basically how likely there is to find press coverage on it that would be beyond WP:NOTNEWS. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do not consiider all awards of equal value. So we will effectivly be saying that 1 VC is worth 2 GC (which is not true, its of equal value) or three DSO ect, which is very subjective indead (anbd what about someone who's won 1 GC and 1 DSO.)). How many purple hearts can someoone win, and why would cutting your self shaving in war signify bravery?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ask that you kindly restrain the snark when you are discussing soldiers that are wounded in combat, which is the requirement for earning a Purple Heart. It is precisely that kind of disrespectful attitude that I find so insulting to the bravery of our men and women in uniform Rapier1 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In general the consensus was that individuals who were awarded their nation's highest award for valor, there would be sufficient reliable source material out there to support notability. It was also consensus that the lower the award, the less material there would likely be to support notability.  Therefore, although the rating of the award was taken into account, the essay clearly states that it is in addition to WP:BIO, and the criterea listed are not automatically garuntees of notability, as some guidelines do.
 * That being said, if an individual has had significant coverage, it wouldn't matter what their highest military medal was, as they'd be able to pass notability per WP:GNG.
 * Furthermore, there was a consensus that in regards to WP:ANYBIO, that a nation's highest award for valor would be the term notable award, or failing that two or more awardings of that nation's second highest award for valor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing to remember for cases like this is that notability is designed to help meet the "WP is not an indiscriminate source of information" policy/mission statement. I'm not an expert of military awards, but as I read this discussion there seems to certainly be clear that some awards are (with no disrespect to those that did serve) relatively routine in their awarding because of meeting some established conditions (eg the Purple Heart).  Unless it can be shown that being awarded those awards will be attached with significant coverage at some point in the future, then the use of that award to presume notability does not avoid indiscriminate inclusion. On the other hand, there are likely awards that are granted for very specific, unique actions and the like that are not normally awarded, or are awarded only to a select few. Now we're talking only a handful of people getting this award, and presumably the rarity of its being given out is an indication of the likeliness of further sources.
 * So while the WP:BIO allowance for any award still makes sense in general, it is rather smart of the MILHIST project to assert that only these highest awards of valor are likely strong signs of notability, as that helps to keep the information to discriminate levels. (Of course, this doesn't mean that someone awarded a Purple Heart can't be notable for other means). --M ASEM  (t) 14:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Copied from WT:MILHIST with some editing for erorrs and ommissions.) The George Cross is essentially equal in status to the VC, the Ministry of Defence refers to both as "Level One" awards.  This all really boils down to the availability of relaiable sources.  For the VC and GC, and I assume for other nation's "equivalent" award, we say, in shorthand, that recipients are automatically notable since many books etc have been devoted to writing about the recipients, the acts that won them the medal, and their wider biography.  In general such detailed sources do not exist for recipients of lower level decorations, despite their heroism, there are simply too many of them.  Some individual recipients may have sufficient sources, but these will often relate to some other aspect of thier life that makes them notable in Wikipedia terms. David Underdown (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of intertwined issues here. First is the question of proxies: are the silver star and DSC good indicators that reliable sources may exist covering the subject (even when a cursory search reveals none)? Second is a deeper question (posed implicitly) regarding the necessity of proxy: do we consider the awards as a sign of sufficient importance that the presence or absence of reliable sourcing becomes a non-issue? I'll offer my opinion (do with it what you will) that subject notability guidelines such as PROF and ATHLETE lead us astray as often as they provide accurate guidance because they have abandoned the notion of SNG as proxy. Being a full professor merits a wikipedia article, even if no independent sourcing is available. Likewise being a professional athlete or a sufficiently high ranking amateur. Both SNGs perpetuate the unhealthy and arbitrary notion of "notability" as some benchmark baseline for importance in encyclopedia subjects--a notion both foolish and counterproductive. Insofar as you propose a rule treating military awards in the same fashion, I would oppose it tooth and nail. As far as the less contentious question of "where are awards a good proxy for available sourcing?", my answer is that medal of honor recipients are almost all covered in multiple independent sources in great detail. It is less likely that DSC recipients would be the subject of such coverage, given both the relative status of the award and the number of recipients. Doubly so the silver star. One last point: if you make an article about yourself or those close to you, your feelings will be hurt. Decisions which are not personal for other editors (nominating your father's article for deletion) will feel personal to you. I'm sorry you found this out the hard way. Protonk (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the well thought-out response. Please understand that my issue wasn't with the final decision, it was the process by which it occured.  There was no attempt to communicate with me in any way before the article was nominated at 4:00am after being up for less than an hour.  If someone had said "Hey, it looks like you may have an issue here...", and then discussion ensued, I would have had no problem with that.  This was almost a speedy deletion though, and it came across very badly.  Now again, I am bringing up issue because it seems that "notability" equals "being famous" as opposed to "doing something worthy of note".  If that is the decision of Wikipedia I will stand by it as an editor, but that doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'll cease effort to convince people that this policy is wrong. Rapier1 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Whose consensus?
The banner at the top says that this policy is a "consensus". Whose consensus was it? Namely, which and how many readers (or editors) have been polled to ascertain that it is indeed a consensus? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not poll readers/editors to determine consensus. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate : a major guideline like this one was not plucked out of a hat, nailed to a church door and voted upon by the resident villagers. The guideline as it exists today is the result of collaborative efforts by many, many, many editors.  Changes are proposed, discussed, and modified until a rough consensus can be found that the proposed change can be made to the guideline, otherwise the proposal is scrapped.  This process is repeated many times over, and in fact is a continuing process.  The bottom line is that the "consensus" you are seeking did not come in the form of a group of readily identifiable people all raising their hands and saying "aye", but rather by the collaborative and cooperative efforts of many editors on many different occasions.  <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Start at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 1 and work your way through the archives. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, all the editors over the years who have cited WP:N as a reason (to keep or to delete) in their arguements - those people are all expressing a tacit agreement with it. Lady  of  Shalott  19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how many is "many, many, many"? 20? 200? And how representative are those editors of the whole body of active editors? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Many more than "many". And probably very, very, very representative.  pablo hablo. 00:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there consensus for the guideline, but not nessarily for everything in it. See Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Anyway you should probably start with Wikipedia talk:Importance/Archive 01. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the questions you are asking are better addressed at WT:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my, another policy page! I have been editing WP for five years, but never had the time to check this particular article; and now I see that is has got half a dozen sub-pages already, which I will never have the time to read through. Is the number of "Wikipedia policy" pages finite?  Countable, at least? Anyway, before I take the issue to a more general forum (if I ever get the energy to do so), I still would like to know the answer to the question for this particular page.  Please, how many is "many, many, many, much more than many"? The RFC you cited shows about 180 votes, and from the tabulation I see that those items which passed (which I can't even understand what they are about) were very far from consensus.  So, does "many, many, many" means "more than half of 180"? Sorry, I really don't have the time to read through the archive pages of the talk page of this subsidiary page of a special-purpose policy sub-page. Surely whoever wrote "consensus" at the top of the article must have made some tabulation of all those comments, right? At least counted how many people took part in those discussions? (Yes, you guessed, this is merely a rhetorical question.) Same thing for the claim that those "many, many, many" editors are "very, very, very" representative of the general WP editorship.  WP must have now about 10,000 "active" editors (defined arbitrarily as editors who made at least one edit per day on the average, over the last month). So, if this article is indeed the "consensus" of about 200 editors, that is only 2% of the active editorship. Could that at least be a random 2% sample?  I very much doubt it.  Editors who have the energy to debate policies at such great length are probably people who enjoy writing rules for other people, rather than write articles on protozoa or Britney Spears; which presumably is not a common inclination among those 10,000 brave good souls who keep wikipedia thriving. Indeed I see that most of those who write here use jargon and abbreviations like 'SNG' or 'WP:N' all the time.  That makes it seem that this page is a forum for a clique of 'insiders', who are not particularly worried about making themselves understood by 'outsiders'.  Is that so? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this page is a forum for discussing the notability guideline. It is not a forum for discussing the consensus process, which is why I directed you to the appropriate place to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a nice drum you're banging there. Have you actually got a point, or do you just enjoy criticising the processes on Wikipedia? Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Jorge Stolfi makes a good point. This page lacks legitimacy, being just the work of a small number of editors who have no mandate or authority beyond their own opinion.  But unlike WP:BURO, it is not a policy, and so is just indicative.  In practise, each case is judged on its particular merits and so exceptions and inconsistencies are not difficult to find. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. I know you don't like this guideline because you're an inclusionist, but notability is a very well established principle, and characterising it as the product of some illegitimate minority is pretty detached from the reality. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not "enjoy" criticising, but I do have a point to make: this guideline in particular, and perhaps many others, are not "consensus" in any meaningful sense, and therefore should not be labeled as such. I asked about the tallies for *this* guideline, therefore this is obviously the right place to ask.  The reason I am bothering to raise this point is that Wikipedia's pool of editors, which until 2006 had been steadily doubling every 11 months, suddenly stopped growing in 2007, and has been steadily shrinking since then; and among many possible explanations for this sudden and scary change, there is reason to suspect that the excessive amount of rules, and/or the aggressive deletion of new articles, may be keeping new editors away and slowly wearing out the old ones.  So, merely stating that my claim is "pretty detached from the reality" won't do.  Above I gave my estimated upper bound for the number of people who consented to this guideline, which I got from a table that you pointed out.  If those numbers are anywhere near the right ballpark, then indeed this guideline reflects the opinion of a microscopic and self-selected minority of the editors, and labeling it as "consensus" is a flat-out lie.  If this policy actually goes against the opinons and expectations of the majority of the editors, especially the newbies, then perhaps that is what has been hurting Wikipedia so badly.  So, if you want to defend this policy, dont just throw empty words around. Instead, please put forth *your* numbers, and tell us how you got them. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree You have an excellent argument here, and personally, I'd like to see it explored further. Rapier1 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every policy and guideline is enacted in place by a small minority of editors. The key thing to consider is if the motion to enact the policy or guideline is widely advertised or not.  If 5 editors get together and quietly pass a new "policy", it clearly isn't going to be consensus. But here, we had a (rather recent) reassertion of this guideline by 180+ with announcements in CENT and WPP, and ran for 30 days.  The results of that are pretty much a textbook example of consensus on WP - its a large enough sample, widely advertized with plenty of discussion. --M ASEM  (t) 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree—I'm also interested to investigate exactly what "consensus" means in this neck of the woods. HWV258 . 03:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to completely agree with Jorge and the Colonel here. Notability is a crucial guideline which influences the fate of thousands of articles each year at AfD. As such it represents an illegitimate tyranny of the minority that this document has been endorsed by well under 0.01% of our active editor population. To draw in sufficient numbers to confer legitimacy, we should maybe have a banner campaign running an easily understood slogan like "Should Wikkipedia allow articles on non–academic subjects? Make your voice heard!"  (The imprecise message can be corrected once editors are drawn into this discussion.) Failing this, we should probably do what the masses would likely vote for and downgrade this guideline into a essay, or even delete it entirely.  The peoples encyclopaedia shouldn't be destroying articles  on popular subjects like  characters from computer games and novels that millions of people enjoy, just because its hard to find references in "independent" sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, nearly every other policy and guideline likely has similar low participation in the design of the language; WP:N is not unique in that. That's a weakness of the consensus approach: it is not as "easy" to participate as a democracy, and requires people to more actively participate to get their voice heard. And when we had the last RFC, it was CENT, it was VPP, it was a watchlist-header notice, it had has much attraction that we can give to policy/guideline discussions as possible. (you will never get a banner-type approach as per the current funding drive).  It is important that we can only take consensus as far it can based on who participates, not on numbers. If the RFC, as advertised as it was, only got 5 people to respond, that's the best we can work with.  What is needed is to remind newer editors that they are free to participate in these discussions. If there is a need for WP:N to be changed, they need to participate in that instead of letting the discussion run the course.  Otherwise, it will be the same editors continuing to assert what WP:N needs to be.  (and fwiw, it is not the people's encyclopedia, it is the Foundation's encyclopedia, with only a few hard rules about what the public can do with it (BLP, NFC).  That's not saying that notability is a rule placed by the Foundation, but it does support the need to be not indiscriminate with its information. ) --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep I read your earlier message so I know its standard to have limited participation. I just think this particular guideline is almost unique in its impact and controversialness (unlike say verifiability which as far as I know has next to no detractors). So I think this is special case where extra effort is warranted to attract fuller participation. Maybe a banner will become feasible if the drop in active editors continues and more folk start saying its due to the rampant deletionism.  How specifically could we encourage or remind newer editors that they can contribute here?  Would you support a standard notification for editors who's work is targeted by deletion that as well as participating in the AfD debate they can have their say on this page to?  FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is like death and taxes: it not that its controversial or that participation is limited to a cabal of deletionists, its the fact that the only alternative inclusion criteria (subjective importance) is far worse. Love it or loath it, notability is here to stay because significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are more or less the only way to demonstate that a particular topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was the only way to meet policy, then this would be policy as well. It's not, and the reason is that it remains a guidelines since it doesn't universally apply to all topics. When notability trends on summarizing the whole of discriminate human knowledge, there's a problem, and usually the latter wins over WP:N. That's not to say that WP:N isn't a good rule of thumb for most topics, particularly those that fall outside what are usually considered academic, but it is not a black-and-white guideline, and discussion should still be encouraged to find better wording or better alternatives, but (to those above), with the understanding that while we can try to encourage as much participation in it, it is likely leading a horse to water - it's not going to happen by force.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, what is or is not discriminate? Like other measures of subjective importance, it is a matter of opinion what this means. Better to rely of verifiable evidence, rather than some broad-bruch category as a basis for a topic's inclusion as a standalone article. I think WP:NOT is pretty clear, whether a topic is discriminate or indiscriminate does not make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia is not printed on paper, it does not mean that we have fill it with raw data. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, but is there an actual process for affecting that change other than debating it here? Rapier1 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting if Wikipedia namespace pages had some kind of statement on the project page or talk page recording statistics. "There are named user accounts on Wikipedia and named user accounts with edits in the last 30 days.  X number of named user accounts and X number of IP addresses have made X number of edits to the (article name) project page.  X number of named user accounts and X number of IP addresses have made X number of edits to the (article name) talk page.  X number of users are watching this page.  There have been X number of visits to the project page and X number of visits to the talk page.  This (type of page; e.g. Guideline) is one of X number of (type of page) project pages and X number of total Wikipedia namespace project pages." There might be codes one can enter to generate some of those stats? I'm still learning about a number of built-in or optional functions on Wikipedia I didn't know were there. I know there are some tools that let you look up some of that information, but it would be handy to have a concise summary of all of it in one place. Шизомби (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is big a logical gap between "verifiability" and "notability". The "verfiability" requirement follows directly from the fundamental goal of Wikipedia (to be a repository of useful, and hence true, factual information); is a practical necessity; and is a real consensus among all regular editors, whether or not they read Wikipedia project pages.  The same can be said of several other requirements on article contents, such as "no libel", "no copyrighted material", "not a resume/directory/textbook/manual/blog/database/"etc.  The "notability" requirement, on the other hand, is none of those three things. As for logical necessity, there is nothing in Wikipedia's goal that rules out having an article on every human being who has ever lived, every street and condo in the world, every species living os extinct, every song that has ever been broadcast or sold, and every book that has been printed — as long as the article's contents meets the other well-established and consensual guidelines. As for consensus, the consclusion I draw from the preceding posts is that this guideline was approved, at best, by some majority of the 200 or less people who took part in the discussions.  Those were neither "random readers", nor "random editors", nor "random regular editors", but mainly  "editors who have WP:Notability on their watchlists".  That the "notability" requirement is not a wider consensus is proven by the large number of articles on allegedly "non-notable" subjects that get created, not only by novices but also by experienced editors, and which are proposed for deletion solely for that reason.  As for practicality, first, the supposed advantages of removing articles on "non-notable" subjects are more than offset by the cost (in editor's time and morale) of the ensuing disputes, which are entirely based on a bunch of *arbitrary* and *subjective* notability guidelines.  Second, until 2005 or so the number of articles in WP was doubling every year; if growth at that rate could be resumed, it would reach 3 billion articles in 10 years, and 30 billion in another 3 years — which would be more than enough for the universal coverage of the aforementioned areas.  Third (as I wrote before, but cannot be repeated often enough), the "notability" requirement may well be contributing to the death of Wikipedia.  This project is still in a very, very incomplete state: AFAIK there are more than 1,600,000 articles still marked as "stub", and probably another 1,000,000 non-stubs that need urgent attention.  Even if we settled for the modest goal of bringing all those articles to "Start" quality (forget "Good Article"!) within five years, while weeding out the usual amount of vandalism, we need to recruit something like 10,000 new commited editors.  We need much more than that if we also want to fill the most obvious gaps in coverage.  Unfortunately the number of such editors has been shrinking, not growing, since 2006. Now, a first-time editor is unlikely to be "hooked" until he has created an article on a subject that is dear to him.  Coincidentally, since 2006, anonymous users have been blocked from creating new articles.  In retrospect, that may go a long way towards explaining the "2006 catastrophe" that we see in the statistics: why would a reader bother to register, if not to watch and/or get credit for edits to "his" article — which he created as an anonymous user? Why would he bother to register before creating his first article, if he has no idea of what that experience is like?  Even if the new editor gets past that hurdle, his first new article will probably fail to meet the "notabilty" criteria, and will be promptly and rudely challenged for deletion. That will remove most of his motivation to contribute to WP.  On the other hand, if we could get that editor hooked, he would probably contribute another 100 good articles and tens of thousands of cleanup edits over the next few years (and perhaps even donate some money!).  The loss of all those contributions must be counted as a very real but invisible cost of deleting a single "non-notable" article, no matter how obvious it "non-notability" is.  In retrospect, the measures implemented since 2006 to curb non-notable articles may have been like a farmer killing all the bees because they bothered the cherry pickers. In summary, Wikipedia desperately needs more editors to clean it up, and a lot more to make it grow again; but the only way to get those people is by becoming MUCH more tolerant about "non-notable" or "too specialized" new articles.  As a minimum, there should be a waiting period of at least one year between the creation of a new article and any proposal to delete it that is based solely on the "non-notabilty" of its subject.  That is probably enough for the article's creator to become a regular; by that time, having an article deleted will hopefully be no more disagreable than having a bad tooth removed. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is extremely difficult to take your suggestion seriously. One year waiting peirod?  Look, I am all for trying to attract and retain new editors, but suggesting that we have to put up with worthless articles on blatantly non-notable garage bands, corner stores, PTA presidents and high school fads for an entire year to meet this goal is insane.  Wikipedia already has an issue with our reputation as an academic resource (more to the point, we are not considered a serious encyclopedia by most academic institutions) and opening the doors to all sorts of sundry and pointless topics is probably the best way to divest us of any shred of credibility we still have.  <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia will never be a credible source, will never meet any academic standards, and will never get anywhere near the editorial, stylistic and typographical quality of a traditional encyclopedia. It lacks the means to get there, and therefore it should not aim for that goal.  Any editor who is working under that assumtion is certain to be bitterly disappointed. Wikipedia's fame and value are not due to it being any of those things.  What brings readers here is that Wikipedia (1) is extremely accessible, (2) is very likely to give some useful and usually mostly correct information on the most unlikely topics one can think of, and (3) is chock-full of useful links, internal and external.  Thus, to increase its value to the public, we must strive to expand its coverage and close all its red-links and "black-links" (names and terms that should be wikilinked, but aren't).  And this, in particular, means creating an article — even if a single-line long — for every person whose name is mentioned in Wikipedia, notable or not.  As for Wikipedia's credibility before the general public, what damages it is incorrect information — especially on important topics, or in articles that, by their polished writing and typesetting, may induce readers to believe that they are reading reliable, reviewed sources.   My only idea on how to alleviate this problem is to put up a disclaimer in small but bold red letters, e.g. " All information in this site was contributed by volunteer unsupervised editors and is not to be trusted without independent checking. ".  It may not be good marketing, but it is just basic honesty and humility. Having an article on a non-notable garage band does no harm to our credibility. Having an article on a non-notable professor, lawyer, or small-town alderman (provided that its contents complies with all other WP requirements) is not only harmless in general, but may be actually useful, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of readers.  A million such articles will probably be useful to ten million readers.  I still don't see what is wrong with that. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability guideline is not something separate from the verifiability policy, rather, it is a guideline for implementing it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don see the connection. Indeed, most of the disputed examples mentioned in earlier threads are articles that are judged to be "non-notable" according to the present guidelines, but which contain information easily verifiable by any editor (e.g. "Steven O'Clock has been professor of drama at Trifling College since 1971"). Most editors apparently agree that "verifiability" is necessary (and I do), but obviously there are many who do not think that "notability" is necessary (and I don't). And there seem to be many more who agree that notability is needed but do not like the current guidelines and/or the current AfD procedures.


 * It makes sense to brainstorm, although the one year waiting period idea doesn't strike me as a good solution. There will be cases where it is reasonable to suppose that notability does not exist nor will it be forthcoming, as Shereth notes.  Notability is probably something not something confined to a small locality; the guy running for town supervisor in every election for sixty years straight can be considered a public figure and may be locally notable, and there may be coverage of him in local papers or maybe even a locally-produced book about the town, but it's hard to say why this would be worth noting anywhere else (conceivably someone off WP might want to write about perennial candidates in X county or X state or X country, but they can do their own research).  Your local mailman, while a public servant does local public work, isn't exactly a public figure even.  Notability would have to be derived from something like recognition within the profession; writing for a national mail carrier publication, being covered by one as a subject (directly, probably not in passing), or receiving some kind of recognition by award, etc.  The greyer area is when there's somebody who does public work that is not local and/or they have received some degree of nonlocal coverage, and perhaps some degree of recognition within their field, and is the type of person a traditional encyclopedia would have an article about, and might have included if they had unlimited space.  Should deleting such an article be as big a priority?  A traditional encyclopedia would not have an article on a literal garage band, corner store, PTX president, or high school fad.  It may on a band with recordings, national radio play and reviews, or a national fad, etc.  When the question is: "OK, here we have a band with recordings, national radio play and reviews, they're notable but are they notable enough?" possibly notability is a tool to delete things editors don't care about/dislike and WP is not paper is not being properly considered. Notability and AfD are not going to give Wikipedia a better academic reputation, I think overall only scholarly contributors or scholarly editorial oversight could do that.  Serious students might use WP to get a general idea regarding something and then go to the cited sources and read and cite them directly but not cite Wikipedia, or at most note that they learned of a source through WP.  Professors do not have so much of a problem with that and may even encourage it on occasion, if students have a better ability to assess the quality of sources than many WP editors do. On a more limited level, individual articles might be capable of being cited, but the author citing it is going to have to (1) cite a particular revision of a page and (2) explain in their paper why they believe citing Wikipedia had merit in this case. Articles on topics that are not just the type of thing in a traditional encyclopedia but which actually have entries in them, but which are mediocre, poor, or bad be it due to poor writing, poor understanding, poor sources or vandalism are more of a problem to academic credibility than having articles on things of lesser notability. Шизомби (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The one year waiting period for deletion is a total non-starter, it's not even worth discussing. Notability as encapsulated by the general notability guide is a good rule of thumb for most subjects, as if there aren't multiple reliable sources writing indepth about a topic then 1. Why should an encyclopedia write about it if nobody else has? and 2. How do we write about it properly in the absence of significant coverage? As for why Wikipedia's editors and articles are not expanding as fast as they used to, look at Google Trends: The searches for Wikipedia plateaued at the end of 2006 and have been stable for three years. If our readership isn't growing, and our readership is where we get our editors from, why would you expect the number of editors to be rising? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting plot! But what does it mean? It is hard to believe that it reflects a sudden leveling off of Wikipedia readership. I have been told that the "2006 catastrophe" was the result of a permanent chang in Wikipedia's public image in the aftermath of the Steigenberg incident. That does not seem to fit.  One would expect a sudden jump (up or down) in activity and then a slow recovery, complete or partial, as people forgot the incident. But we don't see that; edits actually kept increasing for a while after the incident, and the new article rate did not show any immediate effect.  But within a year all trends changed permanently to a new steady regime. My guess is that what we see in that "access" plot is actualy edits by regular editors.  An average pure-reader reads one Wikipedia article a week, perhaps less.  An average regular editor, on the other hand, probably makes 100 page fetches a day, probably more.  So, even if there are 100 times more readers than editors, still 90% of the traffic will be due to editors.  If these are slowly shrinking (as all other plots seem to indicate), the steady number of accesses may mean that the number of pure-readers is still expanding. Perhaps this information can be obtained from the HTTP server's logs? Is is feasible to identify which accesses came from editors? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The requirement for "notability" is not an axiom, and that is the issue here. So the above comments about mailmen and such are off the mark: the question is not whether those guys and things are notable or not, the question is whether we should worry about their notability at all — and, most importantly, why.  You say that "traditional encyclopedia would not have an article" on those subjects.  Indeed, but that is because paper is very expensive, and its authors must be paid for each word that they write.  But "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" and our writers work for free.  These are the key advantages of Wikipedia over traditional electronic encyclopedias, which allowed it to become much larger and much more interesting than any of them.  Indeed, I doubt that one would find articles on Dichlorotetrakis(dimethyl sulfoxide)ruthenium(II), Zuncich Hill, or Mexico (Bob Moore song) in a traditional encyclopedia.  Should we try to fix those "flaws", or be proud of them?  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If this guideline were to go away, something very similar would take its place. "Notability" as a standard is the natural consequence of our basic content principles. The neutral point of view is a fundamental, and non-negotiable, principle of the project. It requires that we present a topic as it is evidenced in the body of reliable sources. If there is no coverage in reliable sources, we cannot possibly meet that principle. Verifiability states that if there is no outside coverage of a topic, we do not cover it in Wikipedia. We are not permitted to engage in original research to complete an article about a topic, thus the need sources that report on and interpret a topic for us is reinforced. If all we can draw from independent reliable sources is a mere assertion of existence or a similarly short amount of information, it not appropriate to have the article on Wikipedia as we are explicitly not a directory. If we can only create a complete article by heavy reliance on primary, dependent, and/or self-published sources, it is not appropriate to have the article on Wikipedia as it is explicitly not a vehicle for promotion. (In respective order, the relevant policies are Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not.) In the absence of a formal notability policy, we would still effectively have the requirement. The most basic content principles of Wikipedia demand that sufficient sources be available to meet their requirements. If you boil it down, notability is really nothing more than an expression of that demand. Vassyana (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a persistent misundertanding here. What you describe is "verifiability", not "notability".
 * "Jimmy Hoffa's dying words" are notable but not verifiable. An article on this topic would be necessarily empty, to comply with the verifiability requirement; and therefore would be speedily and consensually deleted.
 * On the other hand, the existence, line of business, and street address of the "JJ & F Market, Palo Alto, California" are easily verifiable, but hardly notable (at least by the current guidelines). I still cannot see what harm there might come to Wikipedia from allowing the creation of a one-line article with this topic and title, with just that information.
 * Said another way:
 * Verifiability is about the article's contents. Any unverifiable parts of an article may be challenged and/or moved to the talk page and/or deleted and/or discussed on the talk page, etc., as per established guidelines customs, and according to the views of individual editors.
 * Notability is about the article's topic. Articles on non-notable topics should be tolerated because (as argued above) they are likely to bring more good than harm, and because of the incurable subjectivity and arbitrariness of the "notable" concept. The contents of any such article should be evaluated and handled with the same procedures and criteria that apply to other articles (including verifiability, non-libel, non-private, non-promo, neutrality, etc.). That article may be deleted, or turned into a redirect, only if it becomes (definitely and incurably) devoid of acceptable contents.
 * Some of the comments in favor of the notability requirement seem to say: "We need a notability requirement, because otherwise wikipedia will be flooded with thousands of articles about non-notable topics, and that is very bad because it violates the notability requirement." Or, "we need a definition of notability and a notability requirement, because otherwise we could not justify the deletion of articles whose only fault is the non-notability of their topic." Obviously one cannot make a convincing case for "notability is necessary" if one starts from the premise that notability is necessary. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review my statement again. My comments clearly encompass far more than simple verifiability, such as the need for appropriate sources to avoid entries that fit into what Wikipedia is not and for sufficient sources to be able to ascertain the neutral point of view. "Notability" is a term that unfortunately leads to misunderstandings, much like "neutral point of view". The latter is often misinterpreted as requiring some engineered neutrality or fair balance, but instead refers to the position of editors who should neutrally report what reliable sources state about a topic. Similarly, notability is not about some subjective measure of importance or noteworthiness, but rather that reliable sources have made substantive note of a topic. Notability is not the tautology that you present, but rather the natural consequence of our basic content policies as I noted above. Without substantive coverage in multiple independent sources, it is impossible to meet the requirements of those fundamental content principles. You can call that standard whatever you like (I'd prefer something like "Wikipedia:Sufficient sources" as it would avoid many misunderstandings), but it is the underlying principle of Wikipedia's notability guideline. Vassyana (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jorge Stolfi's comments. It's never been proven to me how it harms WP to have a well-written and referenced (if possible) stub on a non-notable (whatever that might mean) topic. In addition, too much angst is caused by not considering "notable" on a sliding scale (all too often "notable" is treated as black and white). Apologies in advance for the inevitable international outrage, but I simply can't bring myself to find the parish of Saint George Gingerland in Saint Kitts and Nevis notable. I'm sorry, but there—I've said it. Oh, I know that they have "goats, which wander and graze freely", that "it faces into the trade winds", and that "some of the other plantation buildings, including the old windmills, have been turned into guest suites", but I really struggle to find it notable. Should we have an article on the parish of Saint George Gingerland? Of course we should. I'm sure that the "total population of circa 2,500" of the parish (not to mention the "pigs, cows and horses [which] are fenced or tethered") find it very notable. WP is able to document a great adventure, and is a wonderful present for all mankind (now and in the future)—let's miss as little as possible of it. HWV258 . 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * <cynical_mode> (Straying into the wilderness of verifiability) I'm now concerned that there are no references (in the article in my example above) proving that those goats graze freely, nor that those pigs are tethered. Should I delete that information? Of course if we do decide to delete that, then I would estimate that over 75% of WP has to be deleted with it (in order to apply consistency, and so as not to have the 2,500 people of Gingerland take it personally). To complete the process, after deleting everything that isn't verifiable or notable, we can print WP and sell it with a title "Almost the Encyclopædia Britannica". </cynical_mode> HWV258 . 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Jorgs and you make a great point about the sliding scale. To a small extent our policies already say different topics require varying levels of sourcing, e.g. WP:V has a section titled Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. For what we could loosely call high impact topics,  I agree with Vassyana that notability follows naturally from our basic content policies - e.g.  with an article about recent original research that makes scientific claims, you need coverage in reliable independent sources otherwise we cant judge whether the article is about some random pet theory or even a hoax. Likewise with a sensitive political topic you need multiple quality secondary sources or its very hard to achieve NPOV. On the other hand, there seems to be much less reason to demand quality independent coverage for articles about say characters from popular novels or computer games. Providing we AGF that folk care about accuracy and fairness and that these articles are less likely to attract POV warriors, we can expect NPOV will generally be achieved just from the primary sources and perhaps fan sites, which should also be sufficient to Verify any dubious seeming claims. Granted its much easier to stray into non compliance with policies when you lack good secondary sources, but that really doesnt seem to offset the benefits you and Jorg talk about that follow from allowing articles that millions of people care about. PS - to proof the goats graze freely you can use the village grounds itself as the primary source - we do have an essay   linked to from Reliable_sources   that says we can verify from plain site as long as viewing is accessible to the public. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassayana's comments make sense; except that I still think that the concept he calls "notability" is what is generally understood by "verifiability". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the "notability rule" being a logical necessity: a basic one-line article on the "JJ & F Market, Palo Alto" would satisfy every fundamental Wikipedia requirement about content (verifiability, neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, appropriate level of detail, etc. etc.), just as well as a (presumably much longer) article on "le Moulin Rouge, Paris".  The only difference between the two is the degree of "notability" of the respective topics. Hopefully this example shows that the notability requirement does not follow from the other requirements; to make it hold, it must be asserted separately. So the question still is, why do we need that rule?  Until someone can show that deleting such a "JJ" article would make  Wikipedia concretely better,  I will assume that it is basically a matter of taste: namely, some editors want to get rid of those articles, just because they do not fit their notion of what is a "respectable" or "nice" encyclopedia; while other editors have different tastes.  If that is so, then no wonder this talk page has got that long...  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Im reading Vassyana's point as being the core policies depend on notability – perhaps in a similar way to the security of a lock depending on secondary qualities like strength and complexity of the locking mechanism. My intpretation is thats correct, but only for an important but small sub set of the articles folk like to create. Otherwise I agree with pretty all you say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Vassyana is saying that the core Wikipedia policies depend indirectly on some underlying notion of notability. Rather, I think the argument is that Notability is implied by the core policies. And I agree that Jorge has shown that there is no such implication. I think that the vast majority of non-notable articles also have some other problem such as lack of verifiability. The question is, assuming that an article includes 100% verifiable information, how do we decide whether or not the article belongs in Wikipedia?
 * Personally, I probably take a middle-of-the-road view: on the one hand, I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on every retail store verifiably listed in a phone book. On the other hand, I'm a bit uncomfortable because I've seen this guideline misused by people who don't understand it, and who can blame them? The guideline is difficult to understand as a result of years of creep that have given us 10+ sub-guidelines, when it ought to be a very simple and flexible principle. CO GDEN  00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement, in that, while meeting WP:N usually means you're meeting V, NOR, NPOV, etc. at the same time, WP:N should not be considered as a guideline that is meant to support those policies. WP:N should be considered as a means to judge non-indiscriminate topics. The GNG provides one clear guidance - when other sources talk about the topic in depth - but it is by no means the only way we decide what is and isn't indiscriminate. I think WP:N isn't wrong, but it is misused, because too many people see it as the only means of measuring "indiscriminate", where there certainly are several, unstated others (based on AFD results) Now, I will still point out that we don't let the core policies like V, NOR, NPOV be violated, but it is still careful to note that meeting the "not indiscriminate" aspect of WP's missions and meeting these other policies are two different tasks that happen to overlap nicely at the GNG. --M ASEM (t) 00:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you grab a handful of sand and keep squeezing, eventually the sand will trickle out (and the remainder will no longer look like sand). The more people try to define "notability", the more sub-guidelines will be necessary. Of course it gives all the wiki-lawyers something to do. HWV258 . 00:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)