Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 4

Deleting article on notability is stupid
I had this feeling, but now I know why. It's very short :

By themselves article on non-notable topics are a plus not a minus for Wikipedia : A neutral, well sourced and well written article adds valuable content to Wikipedia, even if the subject is not notable. If Wikipedia has articles on topics that are not included in Britannica for instance I don't see why it would make Wikipedia less competitive. Non-notability may have some issues like the lack of reliable sources. In that case the issues of non-notability will provide enough reasons to delete the article.

Thus a notabilty guideline or policy is at best unecessary at worse harmful.

I am waiting for your comments. Ericd 17:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems increasingly clear that there is no consensus on this point and the guideline header should either be removed, or the page rewritten. - SimonP 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary: this is similar to CSD A7, which had vocal opposition, but nevertheless surprised some people by getting consensual support. ( Radiant ) 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, that strikes me as fallacious. An exception to a general or statistical truth doesn't render it false in all circumstances. "To the contrary." :-)  I believe Ericd's point here is that the debate on this topic has raged literally for years, to such an extent that its turned political (see Meta on this and related topics; there are named "camps" with very harsh words for each other...)  This very talk page is the single most active and vociferous debate out of all the pages in my large watch list, and the article itself is one of the most heavily edited of all of them that I watch.  There very clearly is not a consensus on this issue overall or its devilish details - the topic and its article are very unstable.  There is simply a majority (of those willing to consistently engage in the debate, which does not necessarily even mean a majority of Wikipedians) in favor of NN (and I think we all know, or should know, that a pluralistic majority does not constitute consensus here.  I can quote Wikipedia Policy on that, but I doubt it's necessary in this crowd.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is pretty obvious that I'm not a part of a consensus on notability :-) Ericd 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe your issue is with this article of yours that got deleted three times? That's a WP:CSD issue and is unrelated to this page. I note that the article had no sources (note that myspace doesn't count; see also WP:V and WP:RS). You should probably go to Deletion Review and ask for, well, a review of the deletion. I'd also be happy to restore the content in your user space. ( Radiant ) 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, that's definitely a logically fallacious ad hominem argument. The fact that Ericd may have had an article (or 50 articles) deleted largely or entirely on notability grounds and may have opposed those deletions, does not mean that his position, concerns or ideas on the topic of notability are somehow automatically invalid.  Please.  NB: I've long been critical of WP:Notability (or rather its status and abuse of it), and I just had an article I cared about a lot AfD'd successfully mostly on notability grounds, but didn't even put up a fight about it because I didn't consider the stress worth it and because there are legit, non-NN problems with the article that I want to resolve in userspace.  Just because someone doesn't agree with your pro-Notability stance and has articles deleted for NN reasons doesn't mean they are irrational, insane, or stupid, or aren't acting in good faith. Nor does it mean that articles such people sometimes choose to defend that have other problems like lack of sources, WP:V, WP:RS, etc., cannot possibly be fixed.  If an article, which is not patently absurd or utterly worthless crap with no hope of repair, has not be templated with various dispute tags and had its deficiencies clearly spelled out on its Talk page by its detractors, and given time for improvement, then AfDing it is a mistake at best and outright vindictive, bad faith vigilantism in many cases.  That so many admins go along with this is pretty appalling to me, because it directly violates years of Wikimedia consensus and Wikipedia Guidelines on article improvement, disputes and deletion, WP etiquette, etc.  THAT to me is a really serious problem.  The abuse of NN is conceivably a symptom of this admin-supported vigilantism issue more than a deficiency in the Notability texts themselves (though see comments below going into detail about how it can be strongly argued that everything useful in NN can be merged with other policies/guidelines and NN done away with as a separate and easily-abused hammer.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because I neither said nor implied that his argumentation was invalid on whatever grounds. I simply pointed out that "if your problem is this, you could try asking there". ( Radiant ) 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, yes, we should be deleting articles based upon notability, as it's not up to Wikipedia to determine whether a subject is notable or not without reference to outside reputable sources. If something is not discussed extensively in objective mainstream sources, it has no business being a subject on Wikipedia, because there's no way to verify facts.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo  21:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Morton, I have to take issue with that statement. As an example, there are numerous bacteria and salamander and fish (etc.) species that have never been mentioned outside of primary sources, other than being catalogued in lists and discussed in professional scientific journals (which are, as far as notability goes, about equivalent to blogs on very narrow topics (of course, such sources are very different from blogs in other ways, such as authoritativeness/reliability, because they are professionally peer-reviewed; that's utterly irrelevant, however, from a notability perspective).  By your reasoning, any species that has not had broad coverage in newspapers, or National Geographic or Discovery Channel or some other mass-market publication/show should have articles about them AfD'd on the spot. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "professional scientific journals [...] are, as far as notability goes, about equivalent to blogs on very narrow topics [...] By your reasoning, any species that has not had broad coverage in newspapers, or National Geographic or Discovery Channel or some other mass-market publication/show should have articles about them AfD'd on the spot" &mdash; Wrong. That is your own mistaken perception.  It is not what is actually written, nor is it Morton devonshire's reasoning.  Your argument, being based upon these false premises, is fallacious.  Uncle G 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Ericd and the thread (indeed, the entire Talk page!) in general: I remain strongly skeptical myself that WP:Notability and its topic-specific progeny are of any legitimate value as they stand and as they are presently used, and feel that even if they do/could have some value that their more capricious and arbitrary aspects are leading to rampant and blatant abuse in WP:AFD with the (careless? complicit?) assistance of Admins who seem to be ignoring "AFD is not a vote".  On the other hand I can see SOME value in some of what's been put into the notability guidelines.  I won't be the first to suggest this, but I'll reinforce it here:  Virtually everything useful about Notability is actually closer related to NFT, NPV, Vanity, OR, Importance, Verifiability, Non-encyclopedic, and all the other longer-established and uncontroversial Policies and Guidelines, and it's been observed by many, both pro- and con-NN that the vast majority of articles AfD'd successfully on largely or entirely NN grounds had serious defects in one or more, often many, of those other areas (which is one reason many who are not rabid "inclusionists" question the rationale for NN).  The genuinely good material under Notability could be merged into these other topics, and the entire debate would simply go away, with both sides largely happy.  I'd bet money on it.  All that said, I'm actually in favor of efforts to improve the current notability guidelines and get closer to something akin to consensus on them, as this will surely moderate their ill effects and produce material that, if someday put where it belongs (in existing policies/guidelines such as NFT, NPV, etc.), will better reflect a genuine WP editors' consensus on what belongs here and what doesn't.  That is to say, I don't think WP:Notability should be successfully AfD'd (though that would be wickedly ironic); rather, its contents should be merged elsewhere. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You allege to abuse on AFD; I would like to see some links about the subject. Aside from that, I think the principle of merging to reduce the amount of guideline pages is good in theory, but largely impractical; complementing policies with guidelines has simply become too much common practice. Note, by the way, that several of the pages you suggest we merge to, no longer exist as such. ( Radiant ) 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have admin powers, so I can't catalogue the arguments of a successful deletion then refer to the article to demonstrate that the deletion arguments were bogus. I theorize that the position of those who do not agree that NN is being abused seems so strong and majoritarian, even consensus, to so many Wikipedians (despite the constant flood of vitriolic debate on this very talk page, among closely-related others) is largely because of this fact.  It's simply implausible to convincingly demonstrate, retroactively, that this or that article was deleted for questionable reasons.  Those who lean more toward deletionism than inclusionism have a massive upper hand in this regard.  The evidence, as it were, simply vanishes.  And I don't think any of us have the time or fortitude to make personal userspace copies of every single AfD'd article to preserve them for a proactive analysis of this sort.  I sure know I didn't join Wikipedia as an editor to engage in such "political" pre-emptive forensics.  I'll keep my eye out for it int he future though, I suppose.  But, really, all you have to do is look.  Gobs of articles every week AfD'd on notability grounds.  Lots of me-too Delete "votes" are cast.  The Keep responses generally rebut the notability arguments, but get out-"voted", and despite Policy against treating AfDs as votes, the article gets deleted, meanwhile either a) nothing in that article's AfD discussion actually touched on anything other than notability at all, or b) a few other issues were raised, on which notability issues are pinned and piled, but the non-NN issues are actually rectifiable - they are things that WP:TD addresses more than adequately.  We have an effective and consensus-built templating system for saying "this article needs work because..." and requesting/inspiring action to rectify the problems.  But ever since the nascence of NN, this existing system is being used less and less; it's much less work to just try to get rid of an article entirely than to improve it, I guess.  An article deemed non-notable by some random Wikipedian is AfD'd on that basis, while some other deficiency in the article is used as the "carrier" for the notability complaint, meanwhile the article was never flagged with WP:TD templates to rectify that "carrier" issue. The process in practice diverges very sharply from the one prescribed.
 * As far as I'm concerned, any article (which does not clearly violate Policy, such that it is subject to WP:SPEEDY and ergo has to go through AFD) that has not been tagged for [x] amount of time with WP:TD templates in it flagging problems to address, should just be administratively removed from the AFD list or be "speedily kept" &#91;where else in human experience could such a phrase make any sense at all? :-)&#93;, and the nominator instructed in how to properly improve-or-remove an article. To spell it out:
 * If an article's detractors can't come up with anything but notability concerns, the AfD is bogus and no Policy-correct possibility exists other that a determination to keep. If an admin concludes in such a case that because 25 Wikipedians "vote" (cf. "AfD is not a vote", "Wikipedia is not a democracy", and the actual definition of "consensus" here; etc.) for Delete while only 2 or 7 (or 0 for that matter) say Keep, to delete the article then that admin has abused admin-privilege authority (if complicit) or simply erred on the side of interpreting AfD commentary as votes to be counted (or some other error not enumerated here.)
 * If an article's detractors have other-than-notability concerns with regard to an article with which to bolster a largely notability-based AfD nomination, but that article has not been WP:TD templated (or otherwise clearly flagged with said concerns) for &#91;x&#93; amount of time, then those Delete "votes" (and they almost always are cast as votes - "Delete per nom" usually, but often a thinly disguised reiteraton of the nomination without adding anything), then those votes should be treated as noise and utterly ignored for consensus-gauging purposes . I've been told by two AfD-active admins (in the same week) that they regularly ignore AfD responses like "Keep - This topic is interesting", or "Keep - this is well-written".  What's good for the goose is good for the gander:  If the AfD response does not address WP Policies, or WP Guidelines that are not wallowing in a morass of controversy like NN is, then ignore them.  &#91;WP:NFT seems hardly controversial at all, despite being at least technically in the sphere of notability guidelines, and there are many guidelines that are not notability-connected very directly if at all that come into play regularly.&#93;
 * If an article has been AfD'd on entirely non-NN-related grounds (but see above - was the article WP:TD templated?), any notability-only "votes" should ignored. E.g.: If The Jim B.S. Smith Band is nominated for deletion because their garage band article can't cite any sources, the article has a biased point of view, etc., any notability concerns are simply irrelevant..
 * I don't have any particular opinion on how many days "&#91;x&#93;" should be, above. I suspect it would vary based on some circumstances.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On the Deletion Policy page, notability is there as a deletion criterion, so that will have to be contested, too. 70.101.147.74 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well. It's a recent interpolation, so it shouldn't be hard to get rid of eventually, if it comes to that.  At the time I wrote my "Wikilosophy" stance on my Userpage around midsummer there wasn't any such clause.  I researched the heck out of the issue. NN was not an actual guideline at the time but just an essay (in fact it had failed to achieve guideline status twice in a row, and spawned a competing counter-essay that was also seeking guideline status), and I quoted proof that non-notability was not an actionable criterion for article deletion under Policy.  I even reminded people of this in AfDs that looked like NN "votes", and no one every contradicted me, even once.  I've left that text on my Userpage intact and just updated it with &#91;bracketed&#93; notes, if anyone is curious (if you follow the links in it you may have to go into article histories to recover some of the text I was referring to).
 * So, in just one season there's been a sub rosa sea change in Policy interpretation of WP:NN, despite the fact that the debate about WP:NN in particular and notability criteria in general has not only not abated, it has broadened and deepened. That is, the changes do not in fact reflect consensus at all, but are instead the pet positions of some "activist Wikipedians".  All that said, I'm not going to go try to edit WP:NUKE, and I don't encourage anyone else to either just yet.  If my position is that we don't have consensus, I can't very well go advocating that my views or those of outright NN opponents, suddenly become policy either.  I think something (several somethings, actually) of Notability can be saved, especially NFT, Vanity, NOT and a few other non-contentious applications of notability ideas to very specific problems; they are quite valuable.  Much of the rest of what NN is about when you cut through the cognitive dissonance are really just rambling extrapolations out of WP:V and other Policies and non-controversial Guidelines, and could easily be folded back into those other guiding documents.  And way below on the "missing criteria" thread, I suggest that NN could be totally overhauled as a set of guidelines that advise on how to apply existing P's and G's to particular situations, topic areas, etc., instead of trying to establish new criteria as the present WP:NN does.  So, there are a lot of ways that pieces of or some variation of Notability can be worked into a consensus view of how WP ought to operate, without setting up a "silver bullet" system that rabid deletionists can abuse to get rid of any article they don't think addresses a famous enough topic, whatever other merits the article may have.  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Virtually everything useful about Notability is actually closer related to NFT, NPV, Vanity, OR, Importance, Verifiability, Non-encyclopedic, and all the other longer-established and uncontroversial Policies and Guidelines" &mdash; Ahem!  If you look more closely at the edit histories, you'll find that Notability (people), ne&eacute; Criteria for inclusion of biographies, actually pre-dates our Verifiability policy.  You'll also find that the very first draft of our Verifiability policy actually refers to Criteria for inclusion of biographies as being the standard for inclusion that many editors apply, on the grounds that verifiability alone is insufficient.  Notability has a long history at Wikipedia.  You'll finally find that Importance, which you state to be longer-established, actually post-dates WP:BIO by 3 years, and redirects here. Uncle G 09:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * &gt; If you look more closely at the edit histories, you'll find that Notability (people), ne&eacute; Criteria for inclusion of biographies, actually pre-dates our Verifiability policy.
 * That to me is totally irrelevant. One is Policy, one is not; Verifiability is established, while Notability remains hotly controversial.   It doesn't matter at all which one was drafted earlier.  You are correct that I mistakenly included Importance in that list, though; I am not a "rules lawyer" and occasionally misremember what links to where.  But this is all besides the point, which I don't feel is being addressed: The useful parts of the general NN concept can be merged into other Policies and Guidelines.  There are some NN-descended things like NFT that probably could live on as independent guidelines, too, of course.
 * &gt; Notability has a long history at Wikipedia.
 * Straw man; I didn't say otherwise, and I completely agree that it does. That doesn't mean it isn't controversial and doesn't present unresolved problems.
 * Don't mistake me for a totally anti-Notability editor. I've even written a (working draft) topical notability guideline myself!
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I had an article deleted and I think the use of speedy deletion for this article was an abuse. Yes this bring my attention to this notability guideline that I find plainly stupid. But this doesn't make my arguments invalid. What I expect from from supporters of notability is a refutation of my arguments. Ericd 12:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ericd, hi. The answers to your arguments depend rather strongly on how we're defining the word "notability".  If it means something subjective, like "subject X is non-notable because I haven't heard of it," then it's a terrible criterion that should be thrown out.  On the other hand, if it means something concrete and specific, as detailed at User:Uncle G/On notability then the arguments against it don't really apply anymore.  In that case, notability is a good guideline for evaluating whether a topic is supported by sources that will be sufficient, both in quantity and quality, to maintain a sourced NPOV article. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is, User:Uncle G/On notability isn't canonical or authoritative in any way; it's just some random essay in userspace. Which means that NN is or very well may be "something subjective".  I don't think that means it's is so fatally flawed it should just be abandoned, but it clearly needs work. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not quite "random", actually. It reflects how quite a lot of experienced Wikipedians think about notability.  Remember that all of our guidelines and policies started out as just something someone wrote down.  Anyway, we've been merging content from that essay to this guideline, amid discussion on this very talk page, and working to make the definition of notability less subjective.  What do you think of the page today, as compared with a week ago?  It's substantially more detailed, and less subjective, no? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that most of the pro-notability arguments are related to the lack of sources. Well if its mostly a problem of verifiability it seems to confirm my POV that notability is useless. Ericd 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. There is material that is verifiable but not notable; for example, my address and phone number.  Notability is about insuring that material is not only verifiable, but verifiable in a non-trivial way in multiple independent sources, which is necessary to guarantee that we have enough material to produce a non-trivial NPOV article. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An article must be verifiable in a non-trivial way by multiple independant sources. No need for notability... On the contrary notability can be a criterai for inclusion much more than exclusion, after all we know very few about Vercingetorix and the primary sources are Roman thus probably biased. Ericd 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... our definition of notability is "verifiable in a non-trivial way by multiple independent sources". So it seems funny to say that articles must satisfy that, and then say "no need for notability".  If you're referring to some other definition of notability, then I probably agree with you.  As for Vercingetorix, you'll note that we have multiple, non-trivial secondary sources, in which qualified experts weigh the primary sources and generate the material that teriary sources, such as an encyclopedia, work with.  There's really no question of Vercingetorix's notability, and I'm not certain why you mention the example.  Again: my home address is verifiable.  It takes more than verifiability to be notable - it takes verifiability by non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources.  Those words I just italicized are what "notability" means at Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If notabilty is defined as "verifiable in a non-trivial way by multiple independent sources" it seems more acceptable to me, but it makes notability an avatar of verifiability. Adding 2 or 3 lines to verifiabilty should be enough to get rid of notability. But it seems to me that the current implementation of notability by topics don't match your definition. Aside of this I'm not sure to fully understand the difference between trivial and non-trivial ? Ericd 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right that not everybody understands notabilty in the way I'm describing. Some of us are working to get more people thinking about it that way, and fewer people thinking about it subjectively.  Subjective notabilty criteria just upset people, and with good reason.
 * Besides that, something just occurred to me this evening as an important difference between verifiability and notability. The verifiability policy applies to content - it's used to decide whether a particular fact should be in Wikipedia or not.  The notability policy applies to entire articles - it's used to decide whether a particular subject has enough verifiable information about it to sustain an encyclopedia article.  Not only does there have to be an article's worth of verifiable content, but it has to be "non-trivial", which is essentially a way of including WP:NOT in our thinking.  In other words, notability is about taking the policies of Verifiability and WP:NOT and applying them to the question of which topics should have their own articles, which verifiability itself does not directly address.  We can have verifiable content about a subject that isn't notable, and then that verifiable content should be merged into an article of larger scope, for example.
 * Another way of thinking about it - verifiability is about which content to include; notability is about deciding in which articles that content should be located.
 * As for what "non-trivial" means, that's a fair question, which I believe Uncle G has attempted to address in some of his recent edits to the page. It looks like our current wording is: "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject."  Does that help at all?  Can it be improved? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I keep pushing for this to be "policy".
Hi.

You may have noticed my pushes for this becoming "official policy" here, and might wonder why. I thought I'd say. Two reasons:

1. It's used to determine what is and is not kept here, therefore it governs content like a policy even now, so why not call it one?

2. In the Deletion Policy page, there is the following:

"Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:

WP:MUSIC (for bands) WP:BIO (for biographies) WP:FICT (for fictional characters) WP:WEB (for Internet content) WP:NEO (for neologisms) WP:CORP (for companies and products) "

Those are all notability-related, thus notability is an accepted deletion criterion, and therefore might as well be considered a policy. See? 65.73.219.85 03:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger
Per the request and the above discussion, I've merged in the four things that I mentioned above. I've refactored the two sections "Notability as a reason for merging" and "Notability as a reason for deletion" into a single, common section, and moved several things into footnotes. The new "Notability is not subjective" section is a slight modification of User:Uncle G/On notability. This is intended to give you a basis to work from, and to address some of the above talk page discussion. The idea of secondary notability criteria that "fill in the gaps" has yet to be included. Uncle G 12:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've notified the community through the village pump. I believe the changes are positive but they should be ok'd by the community. Pascal.Tesson 15:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong disagreement with the use of Uncle G's defintion of triviality. If something is automatic or near automatic for anything of that type of institution (such as a health report for a restaurant or a basic charter for a corporation) then it cannot be considered non-trivial. To argue otherwise is to allow articles about just about anything so long as it resides in a sufficiently bureaucratic society. JoshuaZ 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Our inclusion of articles on cities, towns, and villages is based upon exactly that sort of "bureaucracy", being based as it is upon government census reports amongst other things. The argument about basic charters for corporations is of course a red herring, as those are generally works that come directly from the corporation, rather than from independent sources, as corporation explains. Uncle G 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles of incorporation may have been a bad example, but health inspection, open audits by tax agencies, general inspection reports etc. seem to fall into that category. Also, I'm not at all convinced we should have separate articles for cities, towns and villages- that seems to have resulted mainly as a precedent because of Rambot and not due to any real policy discussion. In any event, there are a number of arguments which could distinguish cities and towns from the others including their geographic and legal importance, there percieved of importance etc. I'm not at all convinced this should apply to little restaurants and what not. Nor for that matter does it apply to most things at this point in time in that way. There are many documents that might be non-trivial that are generally not used for WP:CORP and although not stated explicitly in WP:BIO, common criminals who happened to have their trials covered are generally considered non-notable. JoshuaZ 18:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based upon what is actually a complete fantasy. It is not the definition of triviality that is wrong.  What is wrong is that you haven't actually looked at these health reports for restaurants to see how in-depth they actually are, and haven't actually applied the triviality qualification in the first place. I have.  I've just looked up KEANI-EAST MCDONALDS, 1900 W SLAUSON AVE, LOS ANGELES, CA 90047 in the Los Angeles public health department list of restaurant health reports.  The report comprises solely a bare table of violation codes and a bare table of dates and grades.  There's no prose content in the report at all.  It's hardly an in-depth document.  It's not even a whole page.  Depth is what the triviality qualification is all about.  To say that to accept non-trivial published works is to accept all government reports, is to completely fail to understand the triviality qualification, despite the clear explanation right in front of one that it is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work. To further say that the triviality qualification is therefore wrong because it accepts such government reports is to demonstrate that it is not that the triviality qualification is wrong, but that one simply hasn't read, understood, or applied it at all; and is to base an argument upon a notion of what these reports contain that is a complete fantasy that does not, upon actually reading them, match the reality at all. Uncle G 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the level of detail in a retaurant inspection would vary by region. In any event, make it based solely on depth does lead to a large number of things being included soley because of the presence of government reports. And the matter of criminals and newspaper coverage has also not been addressed. JoshuaZ 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Could this be inaccurate/misleading/etc.?
Hi.

I noticed this: "The notability of a subject is judged by the world at large.". But the "world at large" statement seems to imply that the subject is deemed notable by most of the general public, etc. and this is not so. There are things here on Wikipedia that the vast majority of the public know nothing about -- such as Induced gravity, for example. The "world at large" does not necessarily deem this thing notable, yet some part of it does, since some scientists have written very detailed articles on it (ie. the world "at small" did it.). Perhaps this should be rephrased a little, then? The statement seems to imply that it is decided by a very large portion of the world's people, even though this is not always the case. Perhaps something to the effect of "Notability is judged by third parties outside of/beyond Wikipedia" or something like that? 65.73.219.85 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I could see some clarification being made on that point. The idea of a subject being judged notable by "the world at large" isn't that any particular proportion of the world deems it notable, just that at least a few people out there in the world (as opposed to here on the Wiki) are publishing papers, books, reviews, etc, about it.  There are certainly multiple, non-trivial published sources discussing Induced gravity, or so it seems from the citations on that article.  Nobody means to suggest that notability means "lots of people know about it", and if the wording could make this point clearer, that would be good. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Well put! — Reinyday, 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. I might suggest "the rest of the world", "the rest of the world outside Wikipedia", "the people in the rest of the world", "the people in the world outside Wikipedia", or just "the people outside Wikipedia" as better phrasings. "The world at large" suggests a majority of the world is deciding the given subject is notable, when, like with the Induced gravity example, this is not always the case. Policies, semi-policies, guidelines, or other rules should be clear, not muddy. Especially with notability, where one very often gets that feeling that it means "fame" or something like that, when for the purposes of Wikipedia it does not. 65.73.219.85 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oooh! Just noticed something. The whole sentence says this: "The notability of a subject is judged by the world at large. A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable." This is redundant, and should be trimmed. Combining my arguments above, I would suggest this reworded to "The notability of a subject is determined by the people in the world outside Wikipedia.", removing both the redundancy and getting rid of the "fame" implications. Would you agree with this? 65.73.219.85 09:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made an edit. Is it better now? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep! Sure is! Thanks a lot! 70.101.147.74 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have just tried to update this page to reflect current practice and restore a neutral POV. The article did not make any mention of that fact that nemerous topics do not need to assert their importance, notability, or significance, such as a river or village. Please let me know if any of my changes are unclear. — Reinyday, 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the definition of notability that you just restored is subjective. It reads: "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact."  How are Wikipedians to determine whether a subject "should be known outside of a narrow interest group"?  Does that even have meaning: "should be known"?  Why not use the Primary Notability Criterion as the definition, rather than adding a definition that contradicts it? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to change it then, as long as the article begins with an actual definition of notability. As for the "primary criterion" it is simply half of what notability now means in Wikipedia.  This article used to defer to Importance, which now redirects here.  It is easy to verify that the October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash happened, but as you can see from the talk page, many editors felt it was not "important" enough for an article, likewise with the spinoff Belaire Apartments article.  Such discussion were completely subjective.  Notability currently means both important and verifiable, and "imporant" will always be subjective.  — Reinyday, 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we're working on changing the defintion of notability to make it less subjective. "Important" need not be subjective, as I see it.  A subject's importance is detemined, not in the minds of Wikipedia editors, but entirely by whether or not people in the world see fit to document it in multiple, non-trivial independent published sources.  If so, it's important; if not, it must not be.  If people are using a subjective idea of "importance" to determine notability, that's a good way to introduce systematic bias.  I'll see if there's an edit I can make to that definition, as I do like the idea of beginning with a definition in the opening sentence. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can say that is the definition of importance, but that is not at all how it is used in practice. Did you look at the examples I gave?  From Articles for deletion/524 East 72nd Street...  "Redirect: Outside of the October 11 plane crash, this building has no claim to fame.... The building itself is not important enough to have its own article." "Keep: It just takes one event to make something famous."  "Redirect:  If the plane hadn't crashed into it, I don't think it would have been notable enough to get an article."  "Redirect: We do not document every apartment building, and this one is only notable as the site of a plane crash..."  "Keep: media attention makes it notable.:  "Redirect: The incident is notable, but the building is not. I checked to see if it was included in the 1000-page American Institute of Architects Guide to NYC, and it's not."  "Keep: It doesn't have any claim to fame other than that- but it should have the article due to the plane crash." "reply: It shouldn't have an article just because of the plane crash. The notability of an incident is not automatically transferred to the place where it occurred." "Keep: this apartment building is tall, out side of New York City any tower this size would generally be considered noteable." "reply: Buildings are notable on size now?" "Delete: A non-notable apartment building." "Keep: Duh. Every building in Manhattan that gets struck by an aircraft deserves an article." "Delete: there is hardly enough here not on the page about the plane crash to justify a solo article. There are a lot of tall buildings in New York, and a lot of famous people live in tall buildings in New York."  It goes on and on.  This is subjective interpretation. — Reinyday, 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but on some subject like the history of Burkina Faso there is very few sources. Of course, history of Burkina Faso isn't important. Ericd 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry but there are tons of sources on the history of Burkina Faso . Sorry to burst your bubble, but that sort of argument has long been discredited. Pascal.Tesson 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be angry. 11,300 on Google that's peanuts, if you discard wikipedia mirrors and CIA world factbook info how much non-trivial information ? Ericd 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest 1,930,000 if you search in French. Ericd 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of edits to the opening section that you restored. What do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't touch the introductory section before, but I disagree with several of the alterations.
 * The list of topics that "are considered of inherent value for inclusion" contained some entries that were most definitely not considered of inherent value, per many AFD discussions. In fact the whole idea of "considered of inherent value" is contentious, since "all X are notable" always breaks down.  See User:Uncle G/On notability.
 * Phrasing the introduction in terms of articles "remaining on Wikipedia" is misleading, given that it is not solely deletion that is involved in the dealing with non-notable subjects.
 * Precedent is not often the determining factor; and even when it is cited as a factor, there is usually widespread disagreement. Most AFD discussions that invoke precedent are of the form "The article on my favourite web discussion forum was deleted, therefore, by precedent, I nominate Google for deletion.".  Usually notability criteria are invoked to counter such arguments from precedent.  Precedent is really the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument in a flimsy disguise, in any case.
 * I think that we don't need to employ the concepts of "importance" or "significance" at all. We are trying to steer away from subjectivity.
 * I've therefore been bold again. Uncle G 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great changes. This is looking a lot cleaner. — Reinyday, 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the list of examples of items that do not need to assert importance are taken directly from the precedents page. It is important to point out that this is how Wikipedia functions, so small villages and census designated places do not get nominated for deletion using this guideline as the reason. — Reinyday, 03:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Census designated places will satisfy the primary notability criterion for being the subjects of multiple non-trivial published works, i.e. the censuses themselves and local history books, demographic studies, local news articles, and so forth. Once again, see User:Uncle G/On notability.  Uncle G 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I stress again: The list of topics that "are considered of inherent value for inclusion" is wrong.  It doesn't reflect current practice at all.  We've deleted plenty of articles on highways, for example.  ( was just deleted.)  Adding schools to that list is just begging for this page to be embroiled in controversy, moreover.  There is most definitely no consensus that schools are "of inherent value for inclusion".  The whole idea of the list is wrong.  I also stress again:  The notion of precedent is generally raised in opposition to notability criteria, in fallacious "If article X then article Y." fashion.  Uncle G 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the precedents page says that e.g. mountains are notable. That is different from saying that they have "inherent value for inclusion without the assertion of notability". I don't think this needs explicit stating in this guideline, but it is consensually agreed upon that individual mountains are notable whereas (most) individual trees are not. ( Radiant ) 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why so much debate?
Hi.

I can't seem to understand why there is so much debate over whether or not notability should be used in deletion. As per Wikipedia's deletion policy, notability *is* a factor to consider when deremining if an article should be deleted, and it seems to have been there for a while, so there has to be some degree of consensus that notability should be used in deletion! Am I right? If so, why all the argument? 170.215.83.83 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My take on that would be that Notability may not have as much consensus as some of its staunch supporters believe it does; it has changed a lot over time, and may no longer accurately reflect what the original consensus (however broad it may have been) was about; some question the way it is used (and allegedly abused) in AfD; and some feel that it is controlled too heavily by "deletionists" rather than reflecting a more balanced Wikipedia-wide consensus. Some are critics of the entire concept of notability as a criterion for article inclusion/deletion at all (die-hard "inclusionists"), while others (like myself) simply have issues with its current implementation and use, and the perhaps inappropriate weight given by AfD-participant admins to notability concerns about articles, when compared with other Guidelines and Policies (AfD is largely dominated by NN-based Delete "votes" at this stage.)  I'm sure that others have their own opinions on your question. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is just my 2 cents, but I think a big part of it is that "notability" has been understood as a rather subjective criterion by many people. Many editors have disputed the appropriateness of using a subjective valuation of "importance" to decide inclusion questions.  Subjectivity in our criteria seems to open the door wide to systematic bias, after all.  It certainly makes "notability" deletions easy to argue with, in a way that an objectively stated criterion doesn't.  Just in the last week or so, a lot of edits have been made to the guideline in order to make it more objective, and we hope that there will be less of people making deletion arguments along the lines of "non-notable; I haven't heard of it". -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep. Notability should not equate to "did I hear of it?" There are lots of things here that lots of people haven't "heard" about. That is far too subjective. If carried to it's logical conclusion, Wikipedia would disappear! 170.215.83.83 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I should note that many deletionist-inclined editors (your truly included) are usually quick to point out on AfD that votes for deletion on the grounds "I've never heard of it" are pretty weak. I would even go as far as saying that the primary criterion is already in use de facto on AfD. Pascal.Tesson 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can a criminal be classified as a notable person?
Notable is a synonym for prominent or outstanding. I think this should be pointed out in this policy page. Otherwise, people can put executed criminals, scums, gang leaders as notable alumni on University articles. Miaers 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with listing criminals as notable alumni. JoshuaZ 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Notable", for the purposes of WP, does not necessarily mean "outstanding" or "famous" or whatever. There are things that WP considers "notable" that not many people have heard of. As said on the page, notability is determined by whether or not significant amounts of published material exist on the subject, enough to make a WP article. Obviously, if the crime is very major and impressive, then there would probably be enough documentation made to warrant notability, but you're not going to find every instance of non-disabled people parking in a handicap spot here on Wikipedia!!! If you tried to put in such an article, it would probably get nuked very, very fast. Notability does not mean "prominent" or "outstanding". I would not consider the Empire of Atlantium to be an "outstanding" group by any great stretch, but nevertheless the entry still exists here on Wikipedia, after no less than five deletion attempts. 170.215.83.83 21:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. People use notorious instead of notable to describe a criminal. Miaers 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But you're confusing two entirely separate issues here. This page is about a concept used in the deletion process. We use the shortcut notability and use it indifferently whether it's a positive notoriety or not. But of course, you're free to discuss the propriety of saying that a criminal is a notable alumni but that's a discussion for the talk page of Universities, not the present one. My personnal take would be that "notable", while generally used in a positive can also be used more neutrally. Wiktionary says "Worthy of notice". It does not make sense to remove the information that some notorious character was an Alumni, nor does it make sense to have a list of notable alumni and a list of notorious ones (if only because you create debates like is George Bush a notable Yale alumni, a notorious alumni or both?). Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my dictionary, "notable" is not a synonym for "outstanding". ( Radiant ) 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for some background to this discussion.

It would be helpful to remove the tag from this guideline ASAP, as it's obviously confusing to relative newbies such as Maiers. He deserves credit for bringing the discussion here IMO, having seen the tag on the guideline. He has consistently shown willingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Andrewa 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This should stay a guideline...
Hi.

I've noticed people disputing whether or not this should be a guideline, but I say it should stay one, as long as notability remains a criterion for inclusion/deletion here on Wikipedia and is used as one (and this is an undisputable fact -- lots and lots of articles are deleted on a daily basis due to lack of notability.). It presents important information about what the term means, and really, "notability" does deserve to be described in detail, to keep the subjectivity down -- we have to be clear that "notability" is not identical to "fame", etc. and is more closely related to verifiability and what Wikipedia is not. 170.215.83.83 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's tautological. It is the very fact that this essay became a Guideline (on the basis of alleged consensus that is currently being disputed by Wikipedians here and in various other places) that enables it to be a criterion for inclusion/deletion in the first place.  Thank you for pointing out that &#91;L&#93;ots and lots of articles are deleted on a daily basis due to lack of notability.  &#91;emphasis added*#93;  Nice to hear a WP:NN supporter actually admit it.  Thirdly, if WP:NN were actually keeping subjectivity down instead of expanding it like the monster plant in Little Shop of Horrors I might even agree with you that WP:NN was doing something useful.  Lastly, see elsewhere in this talk page with regard to WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc.  The very contention is that the useful tidbits of WP:NN could be easily folded into these less disputed pages, and the rest of NN dropped, with no ill effect and a marked improvement in rationality in AfD. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I do not understand is why you think this is so subjective. Why? I would like to hear exactly why you consider the WP:N page so subjective, as to me it doesn't look it and I can't really understand your objection on those grounds. Is it the criterion used? The rationale? What? And why? Then you objected to it being too "tight" or something like you actually wanted subjectivity. Could you please explain that to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.147.74 (talk • contribs)
 * The language itself is vague and overbroad, and issue I go into in more detail in the really long thread below. Some of the language is also subjective, even to the point of being nonsensical. A good example is "Triviality is a measure..."  But "triviality" isn't actually defined at all, ergo it can't be "a measure".  Imagine saying "an inch is a measure of distance, but 'inch' has no definition, it's just what feels right in the context."  It's just an absurd notion.  I'm not going to go into a point-by-point review of the entire article (at this point) because I know that people are honestly working in good faith to improve it.  But I think it needs one at some point soon-ish... The real subjectivity problem lies in its interpretation (which is a symptom of said vagueness and overbreadth).  I'm probably already irritating people with how much I'm writing here (in good faith &mdash; I'm being asked questions and having my theories challeneged and so on, so I should address them), so just see below where I already address this issue, by quoting a pro-NN post in which virtually everything said about NN was either wildly subjective, or supported another contention of those with NN concerns, namely that NN is just a rehash of WP:V (and a few other Policy bits) that is attempting to supercede Policy.  The section in question begins: "I just have to quote this stuff"... &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Triviality is defined.  You just quoted how it is defined.  That there are no bright line rules for whether something is trivial or not does not mean that it is undefined, and is, moreover, a good thing.  Assessing the depths and provenances of published works is something that must be done by editors actually reading the works at hand.  It is one of our primary tasks as encyclopaedists, and it is not something that there are simple rules for.  Bright line rules, of the sort that you clearly want, are bad ideas.  In contrast, saying that works should be non-trivial, and providing examples of each end of the spectrum, results in editors actually reading, evaluating, and discussing the published works in debates.  Uncle G 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To be equally rude, you're wrong Uncle G. SMcCAndlish obviously explained what me meant by "triviality" isn't defined. You cant measure how trivial something is. You can, however, measure how verifiable something is (in number of articles in which it is not only mentioned, but featured). Hard-and-fast lines aren't a good idea, I agree. But "bright" lines with wiggle room are a good idea. Notability is a line as wide as teh grand canyon, and people on either side won't be able to bridge the gap. Arguing based on notability is a tactic that practically forbids people from coming to a consensus. Fresheneesz 09:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guidelines are missing many important criteria
I am a newbie but I also have eight years experience as a journalist and feel compelled to offer an opinion:

The fact that something has been noted by mainstream, reputable media, or cited by a respected authority, may be useful but it is a lagging indicator and only one of many criteria for notability. The mainstream media itself does not subscribe to this guideline but makes judgments about notability all the time without referencing other media. For instance, the media values being first, with an original, notable story, much more highly than being second or third.

There are many criteria for notability outside of mentions in mainstream or respectable sources. For example:
 * The opinion of an expert in the field on its notability
 * The fact that something has never been done before can be considered notable
 * A unique or different approach to something can be notable
 * The fact that something is controversial can in itself be notable
 * A number-one ranking on Google could demonstrate notability
 * A demonstration by a large number of people can be notable, regardless of its purpose
 * Awards or other acknowledgments can demonstrate notability
 * Widespread adoption of a product or service could demonstrate notability

As I said, I am a newbie here, but my point is that there are many criteria for notability and the guidelines offered by Wikipedia are very narrow and do not encourage reasoned judgment. Dgray xplane 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Let me try to clarify a few things.
 * If expert X thinks that Y is notable, how do we know this? Case 1 is that someone saying that he is expert X is writing for Wikipedia and says Y is notable. In that case, there are big verifiability concerns as well as original research concerns and we should not be content. The other option is that expert X has publicly expressed his opinion, in which case, Y is getting non-trivial third-party coverage and we're happy (I suppose we might be missing the "multiple" though).
 * Experts can indeed be verified outside of experts and outside of Wikipedia. Examples: Professor at major institution. Published author. Years of experience in the field. Talks given at conferences. Patents.Dgray xplane 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If something has never been done before, is controversial, is radically different, etc., then again we should ask "how do we know that this is the case?" If we know because, hey my neighbor thinks it's controversial, then we are failing Wikipedia's long standing policies against original research. If however we know this because reliable sources say so, then the subject is notable in the sense defined in this guideline.
 * Someone has to write about it first! The problem is in defining reliable. If someone makes a claim that something has never been done before, the claim can easily be debunked by finding an example of where it has been done before. If no such example exists, and it can be demostrated (through reliable sources) that it was indeed done, then we must accept their claim.Dgray xplane 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Google rankings indicate nothing. Period.
 * Disagree. Wikipedia may deem it irrelevant but thousands if not millions of people vote differently every day when they go to Google. Paradoxically Google is probably the number one reason the world is aware of Wikipedia.Dgray xplane 02:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While awards and acknowledgements are not refered to explicitly in the present guideline, they are often a criterion mentioned in the subject specific notability guidelines.
 * Hope this helps! Pascal.Tesson 23:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It helps but I am not sure I understand your intent. Are you saying that these thoughts have merit? That Wikipedia is just fine as it is? Or something else? My point is that there should be serious concerns about the current policy, and its very explicitness could be an invitation to abuse. By making all criteria explicit and objective you run the risk that people will not feel the need for reasoned discussion.Dgray xplane 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * However, you should remember that if there is too much subjectivity, then whatever the rule is may start to wander off from it's intended purpose, and can also be opened to abuse. Notability, in this case, is here to ensure verifiability, neutrality, and to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia, therefore it should be defined in terms of that. It is not "fame" or anything like that. You also seem to condemn having objectivity in policies other than notability -- "currient policies", note that plural! Ie. you are attempting to muddy the waters. But less objectivity means less confusion. If there is nothing defining what "notability" is, any more especially, what it is not, then it can be interpreted in ways that might not be in the best interest of Wikipedia, such as referring to fame, for example. Your definition of notability might work for what you are doing (journalism and news media), but that does not necessarily mean it would work here at Wikipedia -- this is a different project with it's own goals and things. This is an encyclopedia, and not a paper one at that.
 * Re: "You also seem to condemn having objectivity in policies other than notability -- "currient policies", note that plural!" -- I don't condemn objectivity, did not mean to imply this and have rectified the text.Dgray xplane 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the ideas you posted. I'll offer the following.
 * The opinion of an expert in the field on its notability.
 * Resorting to "experts" for this is not necessarily going to guarantee notability -- they might be mistaken. It might aid in seeking further evidence for notability (namely, as given in the Primary Criterion, multiple, independent, non-trivial published works on the subject), but it in itself does not prove notability.
 * Agreed, but multiple, independent published works may also be mistaken. Wouldn't multiple expert opinions be equally credible, as long as they are verifiable? Dgray xplane 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that something has never been done before can be considered notable
 * But if there is no published information, it still does not belong on Wikipedia. See: Verifiability. Notability means "worthy of note", and if there are not publications on something, then it is not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Just because I climbed the local rock cliff in town with a different route than anyone else did doesn't necessarily mean my climb needs to be reported in Wikipedia.
 * A unique or different approach to something can be notable
 * See above. It CAN be notable but that doesn't mean it IS.
 * The fact that something is controversial can in itself be notable
 * Yes, but there has to be verifiable material. Again, we run into the same problem. If there is no material, then why bother putting it in Wikipedia.
 * A number-one ranking on Google could demonstrate notability
 * Perhaps, but then things can be googlebombed to the top, etc. It might be notable, it might not be. See WP:GOOG for more on this.
 * A demonstration by a large number of people can be notable, regardless of its purpose
 * Like I've said, it comes down to the existence of verifiable material.
 * Awards or other acknowledgments can demonstrate notability
 * And in some of the notability guidelines this is given as a gauge for notability.
 * Widespread adoption of a product or service could demonstrate notability
 * It's possible, but not totally certain.


 * Your criteria could make useful guides to aid with assessing notability, but themselves do not define the concept, or at least should not. I'll repeat however that they could be useful guides, and I think a few are already in here (such as the Google test, award test, and maybe some others.). 170.215.83.83 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- it wasn't my intent to create a definition. And I certainly didn't mean to muddy any waters! The point I am making is about judgment. Without people who can and will apply good judgment with good intent, the system fails regardless of the guidelines and standards.


 * That's one of the reasons Wikipedia works on consensus, which ensures decisions are agreeable to the community as a whole. Policy is in place to provide "laws" that keep this an encyclopedia project, and not a free-for-all. That's the whole reason behind the core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR -- because this is an Encyclopedia. And the other measure which keeps it on track is that content that is not encyclopedic may need to be removed, in accordance with the Deletion Policy. See? Oh, and rules are also based on consensus, and not democratic or bureaucratic processes. 170.215.83.83 06:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By community do you mean the Wikipedia community or something larger? I do believe that Wikipedia is generally on track. But I do believe there are abuses, specifically ad hominem arguments that prioritize the opinions of Wikipedians over other, valid opinions.Dgray xplane 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Wikipedia community. But making things more subjective, or as I call it, "muddying the waters", can also create more abuse, since it provides more leeway in interpreting and applying the rules. It's like how religious groups try to advocate terrorism by radical interpretation of texts to "wiggle out" of the murder prohibitions. 70.101.147.74 20:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment there seems to be significant zealotry in a war against vandals. And it's easy for zealotry to lead to unitended casualties.

Verification can be a tricky issue too. Many things can be verified by a phone call or going to the library, that are still not easily verified on the Web. The Wikipedia process makes these kinds of verifications difficult. In the minds of many Wikipedians, if it can't be linked to, then it doesn't exist. And if it can't be linked to within the five-day review period, it also doesn't exist.

This creates a situation where a reputable article can be forced on the defensive. Many people have limited time to mount a defense on short notice, and the people most likely to propose deletion are also most likely to know the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and have the ability to cite policies to make their case. However, many of the policies, when taken at face value, seem to be in conflict. Speaking as a newbie, I have to say that there are a bewildering number of policies and when first confronted with them, it feels overwhelming. Having an intimate knowledge of the policies gives a person an advantage in any argument. The debate becomes a sling-fest of policy-vs.-policy rather than a reasoned discussion. Which is my primary beef.Dgray xplane 01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about the fame thing. I would think fame would be a sure sign of notability. What is the argument against fame?Dgray xplane 02:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes fame can indicate notability, but not necessarily. "15 minutes of fame" isn't going to mean notability... Remember: Wikipedia Is An Encyclopedia. (Why is it called Wikipedia? Wiki + Encyclopedia!!!) Thus, for Wikipedia purposes, notability must be related to, especially verifiability, and if you look at the present "Primary notability criterion", you can see it's verifiability-oriented defintion.


 * However the converse is certainly not true: notability does not imply nor require fame. Empire of Atlantium is not something I'd call famous, but the article is there, even after no less than 5 deletion attempts. 170.215.83.83 06:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great example, and thanks. Can anyone offer an example of something that's famous but not notable?Dgray xplane 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe limecat? As a pretty popular internet image meme, it's famous in a way, but it's not received the kind of coverage that would render it notable for our purposes.  Thus: limecat.  There might be much better examples out there. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just have to quote this stuff; it makes my point for me even better than I can:
 * > ...not necessarily going to guarantee notability -- they might be mistaken...
 * > Notability means "worthy of note"...
 * > It CAN be notable but that doesn't mean it IS.
 * > ...why bother putting it in Wikipedia
 * > Perhaps, but then...It might be notable, it might not be.
 * > And in some of the notability guidelines this is given as a gauge for notability. &#91;emphasis added -SMcCandlish&#93;
 * > It's possible, but not totally certain.
 * > Well, sometimes fame can indicate notability, but not necessarily


 * And this is from just one Notability booster, in this thread alone. Does anyone here still think that Notability as presently conceived isn't utterly subjective?  I'll quote one other by someone else: "By making all criteria explicit and objective you run the risk that people will not feel the need for reasoned discussion."  I.e., this is being engineered intentionally to be a morass of personal, subjective, biased tar.


 * I also have to point this out:
 * > It might aid in seeking further evidence...namely, as given in the Primary Criterion, multiple, independent, non-trivial published works on the subject
 * > But if there is no published information, it still does not belong on Wikipedia. See: Verifiability
 * > Yes, but there has to be verifiable material.
 * > Like I've said, it comes down to the existence of verifiable material.
 * > ...notability must be related to, especially verifiability, and if you look at the present "Primary notability criterion", you can see it's verifiability-oriented defintion.


 * Hmm, gosh, doesn't that sound just a little bit like maybe, kinda sorta, this isn't about notability at all? That, well, maybe it's about verifiabilty, which is already Policy, which already supercedes any little guidelines we come up with here?  If this is the best sort of argument NN proponents can come up with, I think they'd better start from scratch.  Myself and others with concerns about this have been saying it all along: We don't need this so-called guideline.  (On the other hand, I think some of it's "progeny" like NFT are quite useful, but NN itself, as a unified guideline putsch is starting to look like cold fusion and the Theory of Everything: elusive wastes of time.


 * I could go on quoting, but this is looking like a canned hunt at this point.


 * If anyone wants my advice: just abandon this. Work instead on narrower guidelines that offer guidance on how existing Policy, and solid undisputed, actually-consensus Guidelines, apply to various situations, topic areas, etc.  The draft notability guideline I've written for a nascent WikiProject does just this.  It also offers some baseline ideas about what some "notability" concepts (importance, notoriety, encyclopedic interest) might mean in relation to the topic area, in that articles that fail to live up to them are not likely to survive - not because they disobeyed WP:NN (which I never refer to even once, nor the words "notable" or "notability", except to say that we won't be referring to them henceforth), but rather because they probably won't be verifiable, or won't have a neutral point of view, or will run afoul of one of the notability-related guidelines that isn't particularly contentious (NFT, Vanity, etc.), and of course our old favorite, original resesarch, which is virtually a guarantee with most severely non-important ("-notable", if you insist) wannabe articles along with their almost certain WP:V problems.  The needed tools are already present.  :-)
 * PS: I am not the only editor on the aforementioned not-quite-notability guidline draft for the W'Project, so I can't guarantee that my description of it above will remain accurate long after this writing. I hope it does though.  Instead of "laying down the law" - like "you violate this Big Ol' Official Guideline, and we'll AfD your article" - it "interprets" extant Policies and shows people the path to tread to write good articles.  I'd somehow gotten it into my mind that this was what we were all actually here for.  Silly me!
 * PPS: I'd have to say that Limecat is exceptionally notable, in its class of things (Internet humor memes) and certainly satisfies NN requirements that aren't just a regurgitation of long-extant Policy. But I still don't think it should have an article (though certainly an entry on a list of such things.)  Notability doesn't seem to help here.  "Strangley", WP:V does - we don't have any non-trivial verifiable information about Limecat, other than it's a picture of a cat with a grapefruit rind (dunno where anyone got "lime" from; that'd have to be a world-record tiny cat...) on its head (actually we don't even know that, in the Photoshop Age).  No need for NN to kill a Limecat article.  Simple, "ancient" WP policy will do the trick.  Imagine that.  Another way of putting it: If WP needed NN, WP would already have collapsed a long time ago.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps maybe it DOES have something to do with verifiability? Look at the intro! "Notability is a consequence of the official policies that Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc., and that Wikipedia content is verifiable (from independent sources)." There! That's the reason why we have this "notability" thing here at Wikipedia, and why it seems like it's something abuot verifiability, well, because it is! Good observation, but not necessarily something "awesome and groundbreaking". There WAS a proposal here called Non-notability, that suggested that verifiability be the criterion for inclusion without any additional "notability" baggage and it was rejected by the community. Perhaps maybe you should investigate the reasons for that? You asked "Does anyone here still think that Notability as presently conceived isn't utterly subjective?" But then why do you advocate making it more subjective? Doesn't that seem a little... ahem... counter-productive? As I understand it, notability is here to ensure that there is enough verifiable information on a subject that a reasonable, encyclopedic article on it can be written. For example, fame may or may not imply notability -- it depends on how much fame there is, etc. Where to set the bar? We have to keep in mind that notability is here to ensure verifiability, etc., and thus our criterion will become something like: "A subject can be considered notable if it's famous enough to have multiple, reliable sources on it", which then begs the question of "why bother with saying "fame" in there at all?". Does that make any sense? 70.101.147.74 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for backing up my own arguments. >;-)  My contention (and that of others; I'm hardly the first to point this out) is that WP:NN is just a rehash of WP:V (which is objective), layered over with wildly subjective and mushy criteria about what's "good enough" in one sense or another to be an article topic.
 * > As I understand it, notability is here to ensure that there is enough verifiable information information on a subject that a reasonable, encyclopedic article on it can be written.
 * That's what WP:V is for. Please.  I've yet to see anyone in this debate (and I mean the entire Notability debate, across all of these guidelines and essays and AfD arguments, etc.) come up with a plausible explanation for why WP:V is lacking, that does not ultimately boil down to "some articles I want to delete because the topics are too trivial in my particular opinion".  This is NN's Achilles heel: It masquerades as an objective standard (by simply borrowing objective criteria from existing policy like WP:V and pretending they are NN criteria) and then piles on subjective hooey like gravy on a Texas breakfast.
 * >But then why do you advocate making it more subjective?
 * I have no idea what you are referring to.
 * Wait a sec... I found what it was. I had mistaken a post by someone else for yours. Sorry for the inconvenience. You actually want objectivity, not subjectivity, which is what I want, too. 70.101.147.74 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also do no know why you bring up the Non-notability proposal as if I were one of its supporters. I've only ever mentioned it as evidence against the contention that WP:NN has the kind of widespread consensus that its hard-core supporters say it has.  Notability guidelines themselves were "rejected by the community" twice around the same timespan that the Non-notability one was being drafted; I was there, and I documented it on my Userpage this year.  So pointing out that Non-notability did so is kind of neither here nor there.  I personally don't think the Non-NN proposal had much merit as a serious guideline draft; it was clearly a reactive response to overzealous "ownership" of the Notability proposal that didn't allow for enough consensus to form. What Non-notability did do, though, was point out that a significant number of intelligent Wikipedians differ widely from the views of the proponents of WP:NN.
 * > We have to keep in mind that notability is here to ensure verifiability, etc.... Does that make any sense?
 * Emphatically no. We already have longstanding Guideline-superceding Policies that do this.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would then be curious about why you therefore feel the need for a "notability" policy in the first place, if you consider WP:V enough. (That's why I pointed out WP:NNOT, because it suggests that verifiability, and not notability, should be the threshold for inclusion.) Verifiability says this: "Anything you add in Wikipedia must have been published in a source outside of Wikipedia." Notability, at present, says this: "A subject is worthy of inclusion if it has multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources documenting it." Notice how this adds upon WP:V in that it demands that enough information be available to write an encyclopedic article. Also, how would you address all the "NN" deletions, anyway, considering that in WP:NUKE there is the following:


 * "Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:


 * WP:MUSIC (for bands)
 * WP:BIO (for biographies)
 * WP:FICT (for fictional characters)
 * WP:WEB (for Internet content)
 * WP:NEO (for neologisms)
 * WP:CORP (for companies and products)"


 * These are all notability, so it's obvious that notability is an accepted deletion criterion by consensus. Perhaps there is dispute about this particular "general" notability guideline, but that does not mean it should not exist. Due to your dislike of the "notability as a result of verifiability and neutrality" idea, and the fact that Wikipedia is not paper, is there any reason why exactly you feel the need for notability? Where is presently-existing, agreed-upon policy insufficient, in your opinion?
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.147.74 (talk • contribs)


 * NB: WP:NUKE shortcut doesn't exist any longer; use WP:DEL &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * > I would then be curious about why you therefore feel the need for a "notability" policy in the first place, if you consider WP:V enough.
 * I don't. See what I've said elsewhere here several times: Take the actually useful parts of WP:NN (if any remain) and merge them into WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:NOT, etc.  Then, I guess just redir WP:NN to WP:NFT, which already non-controversially covers everything substantive that is actually about notability that WP:NN purports to cover other than a few things that are more properly WP:NOT topics (WP:NN also covers a lot of verifiability stuff that is already a matter of Policy at WP:V).
 * > Verifiability says this: ... Notability, at present, says this: ...  Notice how this adds upon WP:V in that it demands that enough information be available to write an encyclopedic article.
 * No; it changes WP:V, which is Policy, not a little Guideline, to be vastly more stringent. This is one of the principal points of contention in the entire years-long Notability debate.  The WikiMedia Foundation Policy was intentionally broad, with the goal of making it easy for anyone in the world to contribute, and with a vision of a vast encyclopedia far more comprehensive than any before attempted.  Deletionists (perhaps in response to the flood of vandalism and NFT-violating junk being posted, as others have suggested) are attempting to rewrite Policy with an essay, which now dubiously claims Guideline status, without going through the Policy changing process.  Guidelines, much less essays, do not trump Policies.  Period.  This is why myself and others insist that any AfD that is carried on the basis of WP:NN alone is an abuse of Admin power, and I further maintain that any AfD carried primarily on the basis of WP:NN in which the attacked article has not had time for its non-NN flaws to be rectified, and had those flaws identified on its Talk page or with the appropriate warning/fixit templates (the treatments prescribed by much longer-standing and utterly uncontroverial Guidelines on disputes, article improvement, etc.), is also an abuse of Admin privileges.  Any malformed AfD of this sort should be closed as "Keep", having come to no legitimate consensus cognizable under Deletion Policy.
 * > Also, how would you address all the "NN" deletions, anyway, considering that in WP:DEL there is the following: "Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines: ... WP:MUSIC (for bands) ...
 * Easy: Policy specifically enumerates those Notability Guidelines, and only those, as actionable criteria for deletion. The Wikipedians who arrived at those guidelines worked very long and hard and open-mindedly and comparatively apolitically to achieve sufficient consensus to have them rise to their level of prominence.  They do remain a little controversial, and could be revisited and removed some day, but I suspect that their controversy is in very large part simply a spillover effect from the much more active controversy surrounding WP:NN.  Anyway, as I've said elsewhere in here, I think that the concept of notability does have value for WP when it is handled more carefully, in both topic-indepentent contexts like Vanity, NOT and NFT, and in topic-specific contexts like books, etc., where the active editors in that articlespace come to consensus on the issues posed by Policy and by "notability"-related concerns such as Vanity, NOT and NFT (and looser issues under the "notability" banner such as "importance" and "encyclopedic worth" that may remain more controversial) as they apply to that topic (bands, etc.) or type of article (biography, whatever).  I also note that most of these topical/typical minor notability guidelines are far less authoritarian than NN.  They really are guidelines, while the WP:NN essay/"guideline" is really just a wannabe Policy, and is written as such (and even dares to try to supersede policy, as detailed above.)  It's no particular wonder that Notability (bands) isn't particularly contentious (except to 14-year-olds pissed off that their vanity garage band page got deleted, even though it was really deleted on WP:V and WP:NPOV grounds that Notability (bands) applied to this specific topic area), while WP:NN is a firestorm of heated debate.
 * > These are all notability, so it's obvious that notability is an accepted deletion criterion by consensus.
 * When it is done carefully and narrowly, that does in fact seem to be the case. You don't see me engaging in debates like this on those narrow notability guidelines' talk pages, and I've even drafted such a guideline myself, as reported in another sub-thread here.  The problem with WP:NN (aside from usurpation of Policy-level authority) is that it is a quixotic attempt to apply a blanket standard across all of wikipedia, regardless of the widely varied needs of the particular topics/types of articles it would be affecting.  It's "Guideline imperialism", if you will.  So, yes, "there is dispute about this particular 'general' notability guideline".  You say "but that does not mean it should not exist", so let's turn the tables: Demonstrate to us why you think it should exist.  I've already given all of my reasons why it should not, and feel pretty satisfied with that prosecution.

> Due to your dislike of the "notability as a result of verifiability and neutrality" idea I think you misunderstand my point of view. I don't think "notability as a concept for WP is bad" (as is surely clear from the above); nor do I think "WP:NN in particular is bad because it relies on WP:V and WP:NPOV". I do think that WP:NN is bad, because it is vague and overbroad, exceeds its authority level and contradicts actual policy, does not reflect actual concensus, is owned by entrenched deletionists, is being abused on a daily basis in an AfD article destruction free-for-all, attempts to pre-empt more narrow and carefully drafted "local" notability guidelines that have actual value in guiding article editors in writing good articles (the whole point), and finally, to address you question, it is redundant with WP:V and WP:NPOV.
 * > is there any reason why exactly you feel the need for notability? Where is presently-existing, agreed-upon policy insufficient, in your opinion?
 * As I've said, I think Policy and the true consensus guidelines like NOT were doing just fine without NN, and will continue to do so if it goes away, while NN has done far more harm than good. I detect that you are amusingly attempting to trap me with my own words, but better luck next time.  The reason I feel the need for narrow topic/type-specific notability guidelines (which, unless specifically enumerated in Policy, like Notability (bands) is, are not authoritative and ergo are not valid grounds for deletion) is that they help us all make better articles, better article categories and a better encyclopedia (when they are good guidelines; not all of them are by any means.  I've been quite critical of the vague book notability "guideline", written by one person and essentially unnoticed and undebated until too late, that was stashed away as a rider at the bottom of the book naming conventions guideline; I am happy to see that the proposed new, separate, and comprehensive book notability guideline draft is attracting a lot of editorial attention and actually working toward a genuine consensus.)


 * PS: Sorry for all the &gt;-quoting, but there were too many completely separate points to address to do this otherwise, without writing a huge essay that recapitulated all of your points in new wording before answering them.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 03:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)




 * For a counterpoint, read Uncle G's essay that argues that notability is in fact objectively definable. Note also that in general, Wikipedia has no problem working with subjective terms - for instance, "vandalism" isn't objectively defined either, yet it is a blockable offense. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we cannot and do not want to codify everything.. ( Radiant ) 13:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm personally a little tired of Uncle G's essay being trotted out as evidentiary of anything whatsoever. Yes User:Uncle G is a smart person and not a bad writer, and probably a really nice guy, etc., but his userspace essay doesn't settle any questions raised here.  G may even be right that notability is ultimately objectively definable, but that does not mean that the current WP:NN is getting anywhere close (I contend that it is actually getting farther away, though I have to admit I have not pored over the last day or so's worth of edits to the actual article, so I could be mistaken on that last belief; even if I am I would retain a concern that rabid deletionism would creep back in in no time; all one has to do is look at the AfD logs to see that there is a raging river of "delete this because it's not famous enough to me" sentiment, drowning out most other concerns, pro or con &mdash; THAT is why I think NN as presently conceived is dangerous; it plays right into the hands of the most reactionary element on WP.  It may be strong, but like the Dark Side of the Force it is seductive and corrupting, and an anti-individualist conformity enforcing mechanism).  Back to U.G., if WP:NN or some successor did achieve this objectivity goal, there isn't any clear evidence or reason that the result would not simply be a rehash of existing Policy (another of my contentions; it is clear to me that WP:NN was drafted as such in the first place and has not improved in this aspect at all.)  Again, I don't think notability as a concept should be chucked out with the bathwater, only that the present conception is deeply flawed and having a serious negative impact on all of Wikipedia.  My personal preference would be to reduce WP:NN to a guideline, make conforming edits to Policy and other Guidelines (especially to clarify that WP:NN is not an actionable criterion for deletion), retain the notability-related guidelines that are not contentious like NOT and NFT and Vanity, and work from there &mdash; slowly add one concept at a time from WP:NN into other guidelines or new more specific guidelines and let consensus be built on those particular points.  Give WP a steak now and again; don't make it try to swallow an entire cow at once. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. We need to get rid of the "fame" implication of notability, and the "It's not notable 'cause I haven't heard of it" stuff. "Fame" should not be a criterion for deletion, that's for sure. WP:NN is already a guideline, you said "reduce" it to one, by the way. We would also have to get consensus from the community that notability should no longer be a deletion criterion, and since so many use it as one, this could be hard. I don't have a problem with it for deletion to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia so long as the criterion is kept objective and subjective/unrelated-to-policy things like "fame" or "heard of it" enter into the equation. Perhaps it is time for a straw poll just to see how much consensus there really is for this as a deletion criterion? Note: This is not a vote to make a decision, but rather an inspection of what community opinion is. Wikipedia works by building consensus, and the community has to decide whether or not notability should be a deletion criterion. 70.101.147.74 03:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * > WP:NN is already a guideline, you said "reduce" it to one, by the way.
 * Typo; I meant "essay", which is what it was until fairly recently.
 * > We would also have to get consensus from the community that notability should no longer be a deletion criterion...
 * I actually don't think that's necessary; it's not that all notability criteria are "bad"; it's that WP:NN in particular isn't working and is being abused in a months-long massive deletion pogrom. The individual notability criteria for particular topics (that are enumerated as authoritative in Policy) don't seem to me to be problematic.  I think all it would take is reduction of WP:NN back to an essay (perhaps for future work to turn it back into a Guideline again after there really is consensus and the rampant-abusability problem is rectified), a new template at the top of Notability Guidelines that are not enumerated as actionable in policy that this is in fact their status, education of admin that NN criteria not subject to one of those few "blessed" notability guidelines aren't actionable, and a template for admins to use, such as  or something other wise short and sweet, to put under AfD votes that appear to be nothing but NN claims in areas where there are no Policy-blessed NN criteria, advising that "voter" (grrr...) that their argument will not be considered in determining consensus to keep/delete if they don't add something to it that is about an actionable fault in the article.  That template, BTW, would also be ideal for using when people put "Keep - I like this article" and other anti-deletion arguments that are not substantive.  Just an idea.  Again, I don't claim to have some uncanny ability to solve all of WP's issues; I'm just saying, basically, that for every problem there is almost always more than one solution, but that if one does not look for tools that efficiently address the screws and bolts and staples we need to address, and all we're left with is the blunt-force hammer of WP:NN, then every issue starts looking like a nail to bang on, and we pretty soon have a very shoddy piece of work.
 * > We need to get rid of the "fame" implication of notability, and the "It's not notable 'cause I haven't heard of it" stuff.
 * Given human nature and most of our understandings of the language, I am highly skeptical that this is possible. To virtually everyone, "notable" in this content automatically means either "&#91;in&#93;famous" or "important", or both.  I don't think we're likely to change that (even on Wiktionary! >;-)  How I've been dealing with the "fame" thing in my cue sports notability draft &mdash; successfully or not is for others to determine &mdash; is to focus on the application of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NFT, WP:NOT, WP:VANITY, etc., to articles/topics in that articlespace, and advise editors that if their articles are on topics that don't seem important, famous, to have achieved something preeminent in the field, to have an established history, to be well-known to many people, etc., etc. (i.e. "notable"), that it's unlikely that their articles will be able to achieve compliance with WP:V, etc., simply due to the nature of things.  I.e., I don't have to say, "Do not write articles about small companies that make a new-fangled pool cue, because they aren't notable."  The very fact that it's new probably means there won't be any news or other non-WP:Auto/WP:NPOV/WP:VANITY-violating facts available about it, and so on.  I just suggest that people stay away from topics that are that obscure, or Wikipedians at large are liable to AfD their article.  Isn't that better that threatening people that their articles WILL be deleted because their subject ARE NOT AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BE notable, because some disputed blanket "guideline" says so?  I think it is.  So, in short, the "famous" or "important" concept can be used to illustrate with examples, but I'm not "telling" anyone they "can't" create good, valid article about something more obscure, only cautioning them that their changes of article success are reduced.  That to me, frankly, seems a much more Wikipedian way to go about things.  :-)
 * > Perhaps it is time for a straw poll just to see how much consensus there really is for this as a deletion criterion?
 * I honestly don't think this would be instructive at all. for the same reasons that "democracy" is decried elsewhere in Policy and major Guidelines in favor of "consensus". People are scared right now (because of the tsunami of vandalism and dreck) and this puts them in a mood to support drastic measures with negative consequences, just like it does in any other socio-political situation.  They are also, by and large, dismally under- and even mis-informed about the history and meaning and applicability of notability on WP, while too many admins are not enforcing actual policy, but directly inciting "lawless action" in AfD by treating AfD commentary as flat-out votes, discouting Keep comments that don't quote policies and guidelines like statutes, while counting Delete comments even if they say nothing substantive at all, and so on.  I think the poll's language itself would be just as controversial as this talk page, too, since how it was worded would have a major impact on the responses.  And how many of those who would respond have read any of what is on this page or on other places where notability has been debated?  Very few.  They just note that it appears as a Guideline now and run with it, because most of them are not here for internal politicking, they're here for article writing.   Just my take, of course, but to treat the results of such a poll as anything but noise, like the enormous surge in pro-war sentiment and the practically unexamined, uncontested passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act after 9/11, would be pretty silly.  The people that most care about this issue, on either side, and who are willing to deal with the debating, are already in here, I suspect, or will wander in over the next few months.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you saying then that the notability guidelines that are (relatively) uncontested should be promoted up to official policy? As for the whole "fame" thing, yes, it's hard to get rid of this implication, however to assume that something needs to be "famous" for inclusion on Wikipedia is not necessarily a good idea. If anything, inclusion should be determined by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NFT, WP:VANITY, etc. if WP:N is not to be used. Those should give the final say -- not "it's not famous", as there are a number of "non-famous" subjects here that have still not been deleted. Fame (or more precisely, the lack thereof) should not, alone, be a criterion for deletion. As for the whole poll thing, I did not say the poll was supposed to be used to make any sort of decision, as your "democracy" comment seems to imply. I know full well that Wikipedia is not a democracy. The purpose of the poll was to check to see what people's opinions were, NOT to make any sort of decision. Mayhaps it would provide useful information, mayhaps it wouldn't. But it was an idea. I do agree that some reform in the use of notability and the deletion (WP:NUKE) process is warranted, however. But I do not advocate "fame" as a prime reason for deletion and that all nonfamous subjects should be deleted due to that alone. The admins who ultimately do the deletion should recognize this, and that is one place where some change should happen, IMO. At least you do agree that some form of notability criterion should exist, but you should remember that it is to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a directory, and that non-famous subjects can and should be included if they are verifiable, etc. even if WP:N itself is ultimately lost. 70.101.147.74 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish, I agree with your assessment. It's my contention that the current "war on vandals" seems to have created a level of hostility toward any new creation or addition. People are watching new adds like a hawk and the natural trend does not encourage the creation of new content; in fact it discourages it. For any new content, the energy seems focused on removal from the start, rather than a bias toward inclusion and improvement. And speaking as a former journalist, where neutrality and objectivity are held in high esteem, I'd say those things are a noble goal but impossible to achieve in any absolute sense. I will read Uncle G's essay in an attempt to enlarge my perspective.Dgray xplane 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * > For any new content, the energy seems focused on removal from the start
 * Aye. AfD is turning into a blood sport.  There are a lot of people in there who judging by their contribs don't seem to be doing much else but "voting" in AfD.  And it's gotten noticeably worse in just the last 4-6 months.  Back when, I AfD'd Persian pop singer Nourhanne because it was utter tripe.  It was written like a fairy tale, with all sorts of outlandish claims, unprovable autobiographical nonsense, and other than album names and the like not a single verifiable fact (and even the album names and such weren't verified).  I'd posted on every relevant major page's talk page I could find (Persian culture, etc.) that if people cared about this article it needed to be cleaned up.  After over a week not a single edit was made to it.  So I AfD'd it (and specifically warned people not to use NN-based criteria).  Lo and behold the article was actually cleaned up by a couple of folks who figured it was better to have a stub with a few verified facts than remove an article that someone might actually find useful, and it was eventually kept (I was satisfied with that result, and believe WP to be a marginally better place because of it).  Today, that would definitely not happen. That article would have be mercilessly nuked.  AfD gladiators no longer bother tagging anything with fix-it templates or asking people in a major articles' talk space to improve a smaller sub-article.  They don't even use prod to see if anyone's looking.  They rush straight into AfD and start gathering NN-based votes, which apparently complicit admins seem to count exactly as votes, deleting anything with a bare majority of delete "votes", regardless of the process that was&#91;n't&#93; followed before the AfD was lodged, regardless of whether any of the delete "votes" raised any substantive issues (they usually don't; the vast majority of them are bare me-too's), regardless of any "keep" or "merge" responses that don't go into policy lawyering, and regardless of Policy against treating AfD as a vote.  It is really, really out of hand. And it is demonstrably due to the "rise to power" of WP:NN, in conjunction with the flood of vandal/vanity/b.s. articles.  It's an unfortunate combination that does not bode well for WP's survivability. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Both the "war on vandals" and the watching of new adds (aka RC patrol) have been in existence almost since the conception of Wikipedia. However, with our growth, both have grown rather large - at present we get several thousands of new articles per day, about half of which is deleted as unencyclopedic. Before you judge us on that, LOOK at what kind of "articles" we get! Jimbo Wales has urged us to work on quality, not quantity; and in spite of our deletion of inappropriate content, Wikipedia is still growing. So yes, we certainly do encourage the creation of new content, and assist those that do, and invoke massive cleanup efforts to get its quality up to par. ( Radiant ) 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying Radiant -- but based on the volume of clear and undisputable garbage you're seeing, shouldn't that improve people's judgment when they see something that's reasonable or worthy of improving? But what we are seeing is -- (my opinion) closer to the "blood sport" mentioned above. As long as you have a power differential between individuals, you can't escape the maxim that power can corrupt.Dgray xplane 02:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant, I'm with you on the fact that half (more?) of the new articles every day are truly garbage. The question is whether we actually need WP:NN to get rid of them.  WP:V and other policies and the more accepted guidelines like WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc. appear to have done an adequate job.  This is off-topic, but perhaps more constructive than much of the rest of this talk page:  What else can be done about it?  One idea that has occurred to me, is that every article that is new get flagged as such, with a top-of-page banner template that only an admin can remove, and that the various WikiProjects and Task Forces that do article patrolling and clean up become better coordinated, introducing a vetting process by which articles are verified and improved until there is an "AfA" &mdash; "Articles for Approval" &mdash; process by which the warning template at the top of the article can be removed by consensus decision.  This could go any number of ways in its details, of course.  (E.g., maybe there would be a new feature that articles that have not been vetted for verifiability, NPoV, etc., are not shown by default in search results, unless you change your Preferences to show them; or would show up with a red flag.  Or something.)  Maybe this is a misguided idea.  Y'all tell me.  The goal would be to somehow differentiate between articles that are new or new-ish and those that have been heavily edited over time to come into line with Policy and non-contentious guidelines.  That, and don't let anonymous users edit.  That would get rid of a whole lot of the vandalism problem right off the bat. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But what's the problem with new articles? Your proposal sounds like a way to slow down the growth of Wikipedia. Who would do the approval, etc.? It would have to be the Wiki community because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. How would you propose this banner be kept there by an administrator only without preventing editing by every other non-administrator (you'd have to protect the page)? If you believe in page protection so only administrators can edit new pages even if others have good ideas as it how to improve them, this damages the community spirit of Wikipedia and turns it into more of a BUREAUCRACY. (The community-centric method is a fundamental Foundation Issue, see below, that extends beyond Wikipedia to the very core of the WikiMedia project itself.) Remember, even if an article is not initially fully verifiable, neutral, etc. it can be edited if it has enough merit and anyone should be invited to do that -- it's their edits that will determine how good an editor they are and how good a contribution they've made. That's another point of notability -- it helps determine which articles merit attention. We already have speedy deletion of nonsense, incoherent, or otherwise garbage articles, and I do not see the problem with them. If someone disagrees with the article, they can discuss it -- that's what a talk page is for. If they feel it needs to be removed, then they nominate for deletion. Furthermore, disabling anonymous editing destroys a very fundamental Wikipedia principle -- that everyone in the world can edit the encyclopedia. This is not just a Wikipedia principle, but a Foundation issue, which means it runs down to the very core of all WikiMedia projects. Foundation Issues are extremely fundamental -- they are considered "essentially beyond debate". 70.101.147.74 01:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't slow down WP's growth, just flag new articles as such, so that readers are on notice that the material hasn't been checked over very thoroughly by the community. (I think something like this would go a long way to assuaging the concerns of WP detractors, too.  It's very easy for them to say "Wikipedia is not trustworthy" because WP right now doesn't effectively distinguish between an article that is three years old and was edited by 200 people, including 70 experts in that field, and an article created ten minutes ago by a junior high school noob who got a "D" on his last English Composition paper.)  As for how to prevent removal of the new-page banner, I don't know enough about the permissions system in the guts of WP's codebase to answer that question.  If it isn't feasible, it could be handled the same way that deleting AfDs or blanking pages is, as a form of actionable vandalism.  No biggie.  I definitely was NOT suggesting page protection so that only admins could edit!  Quite the opposite; the whole idea would be that removal of the new-page warning would be a goal that Wikipedians would want articles to achieve, and they'd work on the articles to help them get there.


 * > Remember, even if an article is not initially fully verifiable, neutral, etc. it can be edited
 * Certainly. I've been harping on this myself; seem my comments elsewhere that what's going wrong with AfD is that people are AfDing reparable articles rather than working on them because its more expedient (and, for the deletion-sports addicted, more "fun") to destroy articles they don't like than to actually help make them good articles. Anyway, it was just an idea that popped into my head.  If 10% of that idea had some actual applicable value to the problem, I'd be very happy at having made that much of a contribution to the issue.


 * > ...it can be edited if it has enough merit... it helps determine which articles merit attention.
 * Strongly disagree; that's just another case of the "notability" concept being squishy, subjective goo. A genus of bacteria is surely "notable" (just by virtue of the fact that it's an entire genus), while some new WWF wrestler who's only been in one match might not be, but I can virtually guarantee you that there will be more editorial interest in the latter, since it requires no special knowledge or difficult research, just a penchant for watching wrestling on TV and looking on Google and in rasslin' magazines for biographical information.  I am beyond skeptical of the idea that the amount of editorial activity on a topic has anything whatsoever to do with its "notabilty" (I actually suspect that several NN boosters here would agree with me, given what I've seen above along the lines of "fame, popularity and large number of Google hits do not automatically make something notable".  :-)  If you meant that the quality of the edits can help determine notability (a possible interpretation of what you wrote), I'd have to disagree with that as well.  To the extent that this isn't just random, it largely has to do with the nature of the topic.  And sometimes it's quite the inverse.  I've run across lame articles I thought might be worth saving from the ravenous belly of AfD, marginally, and worked disproportionately hard on cleaning them up, while I often let things slide in articles that aren't likely to be AfD'd because I can see that they already are getting attention regularly from other editors, so I move on (if the topic isn't one I feel a major affinity for.)  I personally don't think anything concrete can be said with regard to notability when it comes to edit quality.


 * > We already have speedy deletion of nonsense, incoherent, or otherwise garbage articles, and I do not see the problem with them.
 * Sorry, I wasn't sure what you meant. Are you saying you don't have a problem with WP:SPEEDY deletions, or you don't have a problelm with nonsense/incoherent articles laying around until they're fixed? (I think either of those are rationally defensible points of view, though I lean toward the former strongly myself, esp. since deleting a gibberish article isn't really costing anyone any real work.)


 * > Furthermore, disabling anonymous editing destroys a very fundamental Wikipedia principle -- that everyone in the world can edit the encyclopedia ... a Foundation issue...
 * Nah. Anyone capable of editing an article is also capable of creating an account, since they are both the same thing (filling in an HMTL form and submitting it.)  I worked on anonymity and free speech issues at the EFF for almost a decade straight, so I am of course sympathetic to the desire for anonymity.  In a reputation capital-based marketplace of ideas like Wikipedia, I don't see that true anonymity gets anyone anything, as opposed to pseudonymity, which the vast majority of us use here anyway (I have no idea what the real names or locations of most Wikipedians are) &mdash; it still allows anyone in the world to edit (which I certainly agree is fundamental to the entire idea), and it simultaneously would reduce abuse of Wikipedia while also protecting real identities (for those who want that protection; personally I'm proud of my participating here and my edits, and make no bones about my real name on my Userpage.  I have no problem with those who feel otherwise, though.  Only with those who are not registered in the system at all but can come in and kick the walls out any time they like without any reputational consequences.  Of course, some people would just create throwaway pseudonym after throwaway pseudonym to continue vandalizing, but the process takes time, and that by itself would slash the vandalism rate considerably.  Also, there could be intermediate solutions, such has having anon edits go into a "holding tank", in which any non-anon user could approve or reject the edits.  And so on.  I don't pretend to have some Magic Answer to the Wikipedia Spam and Vandalism problem; I'm just saying there are signposts to solutions, and most of them point in the direction of reducing anon user power.
 * &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, you've made a really detailed post!!! Yikes!!! I guess I'll have to break this down and answer each point you brought up one at a time.


 * Point 1: Tag on Top of Page and Does it Slow Growth?
 * Wikipedia's permissions system is built into the software, there is no way to really change it without a software upgrade. It can either protect whole pages or not protect them at all. There isn't any way with the current software to make a single tag "stuck" on a page, but I suppose the software could be modified. Right now, though, removes by non-administrators or someone not given permission (notice that latter one) would best be handled by reversion. This is a technical limitation of the software itself. It might work, but I fail to see what purpose it serves. 70.101.147.74 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kinda figured, re: the tech stuff. The purpose it would serve is to warning incoming readers that the article is something that just got posted and ergo hasn't had any/much editing & verification attention from the Wikipedian community.  I think I already suggested that removing the tag (and undoing reversion of that edit) could be handled as vandalism in the 4-strike system we already have in place for blocking bad-actors. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it could be a good idea, but I don't know how this relates to notability, perhaps this could be discussed somewhere else? Anyway, I suppose one could do this, but I'm not sure how much it would help. 70.101.147.74 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point 2: Article Can Be Edited Even if Initially Crummy
 * I'm happy to see you agreed with me here. The point of this is that I was arguing agains the idea that only administrators could edit, which I will admit may have been somewhat of a straw man on my part, but one caused by a misunderstanding. 70.101.147.74 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, definitely. We are of one mind on this on; sorry if my original "proposal" could be misinterpreted that way.  Yeesh.  I not dat cwazy!  >;-)   &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess not :) 70.101.147.74 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point 3: Notability and "Merit"
 * The purpose of notability may not necessarily be due to the article having or not having merit to be worth maintianing, but it does help keep Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate directory of information and a directory. Notability could be thought of as a more "fleshed-out" description of that, and the current guideline up here to me seems objective enough. I still don't quite understand why you think it is so subjective. As for "merit", a previous version of this said that articles had to be notable enough so that editors would be interested in maintaining them. However, I'm not so sure if this still applies, since it was removed from the page. 70.101.147.74 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this above in another post. I would surmise that the deleted point doesn't apply, since it was deleted.  Heh. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which post? You've made quite a lot of long, almost small essay-sized posts here (no offense intended)... Also, as for the fame thing, in one post I saw here you seem to imply that lack of fame alone is not a reason for deletion and that deletions would best be handled by policy like WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc., right? However, I do not think that WP:N should be gotten rid of, but rather it's use should be changed, and perhaps it should maybe be changed to a true "guideline" (ie. it's a guideline and not a rule) that would say something to the effect of notability being a useful tool to judge what to write articles about, etc., but it, alone, is not a sufficient deletion criterion (WP:V, etc. would be for that.). The present page gives us some suggestions for how to make a call on whether or not there is sufficient information, however perhaps some changes might be in order. Reform though is probably best done with how notability is applied and used, namely the whole deletion thing. 70.101.147.74 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point 4: Speedy Deletion
 * What I meant here was that I do not have a problem with speedy deletion, as it helps keep the Wikipedia clear of useless junk (such as pages called "Bkfoj" saying "Bkfoj is toast helper mania for free poker doaker to our house in England the rice paddy Iraq pannel commision hastingly toast my ass for us not of trying of reafoning of foark hoark Dice can be rolled and also 1000 miles to the slim chicken of rug dealers" or some bollocks like that), not that I don't have a problem with nonsense articles lying around until they can be fixed. Some articles just cannot be fixed, that's just it! Like the example I gave. It's so hopelessly confused nothing can possibly be salvaged from it (I mean, what do you make of that thing?). Such a thing should obviously be WP:NUKEd as fast as possible. 70.101.147.74 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep! &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 70.101.147.74 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point 5: Disabling Anonymous Edits & Vandalism
 * This is the one I take the most issue with. First of all, what is wrong with present anti-vandalism systems, and why can't they be beefed up? Anonymous editing is part of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. Forcing people to go through some sort of "registration" does impede editing, and furthermore a vandalism program could just sign up sock puppets and vandalize automatically (I wouldn't be surprised if such things already exist, too.). Such a program would not be very difficult to make. Therefore, it really doesn't do much but frustrate legit contribution from the world. As for "reputation", I don't see why someone should be held to this, as even someone with a "bad reputation" might suddenly change and make good useful edits. I believe in people's ability to change, and whether or not they do depends on what they choose to do. Disabling anon edits doesn't help much against dedicated vandals and those are what really have to be dealt with. What I really do not understand is how is the present system broke?


 * Anyway, that's my response for now. 70.101.147.74 03:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not personally certain that the present system is broken; I just get the impression that many others think it is, or that it isn't effective enough. &lt;shrug&gt; The "proposal' was more along the lines "if this is a big enough problem, then..."  I don't have a personal opinion on need for it one way or the other really.  As for "reputation", I was speaking in terms of "reputation capital" and "reputation markets", two concepts that Wikipedia is very strangely lacking articles on.  WP already has a crude reputation system - if you go to the page of someone who's previously been banned you'll see a template there saying so (I gather from what you said about the tech, up above, that there is nothing at all stopping said user from removing this template when they get unbanned, but oh well.  This embryonic reputation market also works with WP's inbuilt social capital system.  Editors who do good things are thought of well, listened to more closely, have their edits more respected, etc., than those who make jackasses out of themselves.  Anyway, I wasn't suggesting something like the eBay "Feedback" system or other "official reputation record", just talking about the sociological processes already at play.  Next...  Forcing people through registration does impeded editing, but only once.  Seems like a small price to pay, and Wikipedia is one of the few world-editable online resources in the world that does not require some kind of registration.  Even most (or at least a very large number of) blogs do now, because of commentspam.  If people have to login everywhere else - web boards, e-commerce shopping cards, their own e-mail account, etc., etc., then why not here?  I think that disabling or restricting anon edits would have a major impact on dedicated vandals, because of the time consumption required to hide behind 20 or whatever sockpuppet accounts (though, of course it would not be a total solution; I'm sure there isn't one), and further I'm not so sure that dedicated vandals really are the issue.  Rather, it seems to me that most "stinky butt" and page-blanking kind of vandalism is done by first-time junior high school-aged newbies as a prank or test (for which they get spanked with a four-strikes warning template).  If they keep it up, their entire IP address gets blocked (which can actually lock out potentially thousands of users, if the IP address belongs to a large school or the like.)  I think register-to-edit would be a lower-impact solution.  But this is getting off-topic so I'll shut up now. :-)   &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 04:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * However, I, personally, do not tend to judge based on "reputation" so much as on exactly what actions the person has done that I agree/disagree with. A person who has gotten some "bad" things on their reputation are still capable of becoming better and doing "good" things. In my belief, nobody is purely "evil". The thing that I was talking about was that it would not stop dedicated vandals with vandal-BOTS that vandalize AUTOMATICALLY and can thus create dozens or hundreds of "Vandalism Accounts" that would be used for nothing but vandalism. Since the amount of usernames is essentially infinite, this is more difficult to stop. WP:BOMB is an example of an (admittedly empty) threat to deploy a vandal bot that if it existed would have pretty much ruined Wikipedia (I mean, think about it, the effort involved in reverting a blanking/gibberizing of all 2 million+ articles here...). 70.101.147.74 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dgray - yes, I think it does improve people's judgment, and have seen no evidence of blood sport. Candlish - your argument is circular in that NFT is a notability guideline. There is some merit to your suggestions of approval systems (although I suspect them to be unwieldy) but such feature requests are best made on a separate page. I suspect you're mistaking this guideline for a prescription rather than a description. Indeed, we don't need (nor use) this page to get rid of anything; we use this page to describe a class of articles that tend to be deleted or merged. ( Radiant ) 12:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that something is "impossible to achieve in any absolute sense" is not an argument against striving for it. Just sayin'. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. 70.101.147.74 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GTBacchus: I agree wholeheartedly! (It's my quote). I do believe it is worth striving for! Also important to remember it's never 100% achieved and should always be open to discussion. Dgray xplane 02:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggregation
Does anyone think it would be helpful to make the point that, when notability is at issue, arguments need to be looked at in aggregate? For example, a high Google rank alone may not demonstrate notability, but in addition to several other factors it could add credence to an argument? If Google is a sensitive topic remove it from the question: Can notability factors which, in and of themselves, may be questionable, be reconsidered in combination with other arguments?Dgray xplane 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The search engine test is notoriously bad. Counting Google hits is not research.  Research involves actually reading the things that Google locates.  Google is a tool, not a metric.  As for considering factors in combination, our criteria already address this.  In most cases, a subject is notable if it satisfies one or more of the criteria.  However, bear in mind that the PNC enjoys a broad base of support amongst many Wikipedia editors.  If one can show that a subject unequivocally satisfies the PNC, there's no real need to look for additional criteria to satisfy.  It's therefore the best approach to take. Uncle G 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 1
I randomly encountered this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports: = = Notability ==

Always a controversial topic, I know... but are there any general guidelines as to what constitutes a notable sports club? The particular examples I'm thinking of here are most of the members of the Ontario Australian Football League after Central Blues went from prod to AfD and then got speedy deleted today, but any more general thoughts also appreciated. Cheers --Pak21 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note "Always a controversial topic". How hard does anyone think I'll have to search to find a boatful of similar comments all over Wikipedia talk? I theorize that I could demonstrate that notability is pretty much "legendary" on WP for being controversial (which by definition means there is no consensus about it.)

Note also that this person appears to have (could've been WP:AUTO, I suppose) created good-faith articles on a team in a sports league that spans a Canadian province vastly larger that almost all US states (i.e., the league is probably "notable"), and there isn't any particular reason that a team in a province- or state-wide (or UK county-wide) league could not be "notable"; if this one and its members were not, by whoever's subjective critieria, they could (and strongly-arguably should) easily have been folded into a ==Teams== section in the league's article. Yet it all just got nuked on NN grounds. Someone asked for examples a few days ago, so here's one worth at least looking into. Again, I have better things to do than put up a tent in AfD and do nothing but monitor it, but if I see further examples pointed out by others elsewhere I'll be glad to add information about them here. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 05:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Note also that the Speedy Deletion may have been a violation of both WP:CFD and WP:SD. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article Central Blues was deleted per this AFD, as endorsed by deletion review. I don't quite see how this deletion was a violation of anything, and note that it wasn't a speedy. ( Radiant ) 12:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But it was. Quote from the AfD: "The result was speedy delete..." Anyway, as with  without seeing the article, it is impossible to show whether the article asserted importance as per A7; I find it unlikely that someone would have gone to the trouble of writing up league, team and player articles without doing so, but I'll concede that I can't prove it at this stage.  The main point of this example was controversy not abuse anyway.  However, see the AfD and note that the article was defended against a prod by a second editor (not Pak21), indicating that there was probably sufficient interest in this article to defend it in a full AfD if it hadn't been speedied, or if the article had been tagged with a WP:V or other warning template before being AfD'd. Note also that one of the NN-boosting delete "voters" indicates "hatred" of the prod Policy (he/she's entitled to any opinion, of course, but I think it's a good example of the "Wikipedia consensus processes aren't mean enough; we need a bludgeon we can really kill articles indiscriminately with" attitude that has infested AfD and lent support for the notion that NN is and should be an actual Guideline.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, interesting - the AFD says "speedy" but the deletion log says "see AFD". Some admins should not use shorthand quite as often. Nevertheless, it was upheld at DRV. Looking over the article, it is an amateur club that "has ambitious goals for it's first three years and is well on the way to meeting them". That sounds like a textbook example of something that intends to be famous but just isn't there yet. I see no grounds for your assertion about meanness and bludgeons; rather, people sometimes complain about the "weakness" of PROD (actually its strength) that any editor can veto it. ( Radiant ) 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging around about it. I don't spend nearly as much time as some people dealing with AfDs and other disputes, so I find the process tedious and difficult.  It does sound like it transgressed on crystal ball grounds under WP:NOT, but this was most likely a rectifiable fault.  It looks to me like the article either was speedied or those involved believed it to have been, since neither of the articles supporters even posted to the AfD about it and went the DRV and WikiProject Sports routes later.  So, I concede that the deletion probably wasn't a DP violation (while maintaining that if guideline recommendations for handling of deficient articles and articles disputes and deletion processed had been followed in a Wikipedian manner, e.g. using fixit templates at the top of the article, that the article could have been improved enough to survive.  This is a side point I keep returning to, in the larger-than-NN issue of what is wrong with current deletion habits.)  On to the next point, I think you are inadvertently supporting my own argument on this sub-sub-issue: The fact that prod is a strength not a weakness if you understand WP well, and anecdotal evidence of detractors of that policy essentially saying they are using speedy because they "hate" (direct quote) prod, is at least mildly supportive of my contention elsewhere in here that AfD is becoming a sport/pastime/obsession for many, which has nothing to do with making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, but is akin to flamewarring and trolling - a destructive activity for its own sake.  Just an opinion; but I don't think that your pointing out that prod is a strength not a fault undermines any point I'm making; it's a view I share myself.  Lastly, I maintain that principal point of this example, that Notability is controversial and ergo definitionally non-consensus. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is possible that some articles are deleted could have survived using fixit templates. It is also possible that some articles with fixit templates are not in fact fixable and should be deleted. Before we stray into appeal to probability, I would want to see better evidence of either; that a process sometimes gets it wrong does not imply that it usually gets it wrong. So far you have anecdotal evidence of one editor disliking PROD, who incidentally mentioned neither speedy nor notability. Some editors dislike PROD, but that does not make PROD controversial. Similarly, some editors dislike NN, but neither does that make NN controversial. ( Radiant ) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 2
Here's what appears appeared to be a really egregious case of admin abuse of NN: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24. There were only two responses to the AfD, which was only just filed, and both of them were nothing but notability claims, as was the orgininal nom, but the article was Speedily Deleted with no explanation. Aside from the specific topical notability guidelines enumerated as actionable under Policy at WP:DEL, non-notability alone is not deletion-actionable in and of itself. Even the WP:DEL-blessed notability criteria do not justify Speedy Deletion, and neither do the WP:SPEEDY deletion criteria! If something else justified Speedy Deletion it should have been recorded in the deletion log at the link above. I haven't even seen the article, but if the only identified problem with it (and it is in fact the only recorded one) was that the nominator thought it was "non-notable comics" then this article should be undeleted immediately and subject to a full AfD. I have raised the issue on the Talk page of the admin. I think it is also notable (no pun intended) that the admin didn't even post his own SD notice and templates, but rather another user, who seems to work with him and others to nuke articles, and who voted for SD on this, posted it for him &mdash; a user who appears again and again and again nominating things for SD on notabilty grounds (a user who is seeking admin status, which scares me, and is a regular NP patroller and such, which is probably a good thing given his level of activism, even if some of it is misdirected). So, there's your evidence of both "AfDaholics" who use AfD as a sport/pastime, and admin collusion with (not just sloppy handling of) grossly improper deletions. Note also that the AfD immediately below this one only narrowly escaped precisely the same fate &#91;?&#93; for precisely the same reasons. I didn't even look farther to see how many more there were. I found this in just two minutes of looking for stuff like it in AfD, just in today's log. Frankly I'm not interested in any more "you gotta give us examples or we won't believe you" stuff here. Just go look. It'll take you all longer to write me another "give us proof" message than it will to just go see for yourselves how NN is being abused in what appears to be unmistakable WP Policy violation. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be any different from the vandalism everyone is so up in arms about. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

&#91;Update: I had the article moved into my userspace, and it turns out it was a webcomic, which the AfD never mentioned, so it is in fact subject under Policy to WP:SPEEDY, by way of WP:DEL, row 2, as WP:WEB material. Looking the article over, I do not believe it would have survived AfD had SD not applied because of serious WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:VANITY and WP:V problems. I've stricken (incorrect) and greyed out (moot) portions of this example that are no longer applicable as a consequence of the new info. I'm sure there'll be a better one along shortly. The follow-on comments below should be read with all this in mind (if at all), as much of this example is now moot.&#93; &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The deleting admin should have been a bit clearer about this - but it is known that speedy deletion trumps AFD. This appears to have been a case of CSD criterion A7 - indeed, it is a webcomic that has ran for less than a month. I don't quite see how it is wrong that some user tagged it as such and another user deleted it (indeed, that would be better than a single person doing all the work, since now at least two people have looked upon it). ( Radiant ) 12:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Difficult to verify; I have formally requested (under WP:GDFA) that the article be moved into my userspace so that it can be examined. I'll report the results as they come up. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 3
A case of a proposed Guideline, Overcategorization, which in its very first illustrative passage uses the term "notable" as a canonical example of "not objectively defined". Not very good news for consensus on this topic... &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So then how do you propose to objectively define notability? 70.101.147.74 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the above is a decent summation of why we're trying to make the definition more objective. Got any specific suggestions?  Why not help promote the new, objective definition of notability? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not propose to objectively definite notability, and I do not believe that doing so is possible, due to the very definitions of the word and the connotations it auto-conveys to those that read it. As stated above, I think a Wikipedia-wide consensus Notability concept is a pipedream and that trying to create one is quixotic and a mistake, while narrow, limited notability guidelines that exist to help editors apply accepted Policy in particular topics or article types are both useful and practical (when done properly.) I shouldn't have to reiterate myself this much after going into the depth that I've gone into on this topic. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * However, I do believe that an objective definition of what Wikipedia calls "notability" is possible, even if this does not agree with the usual colloquial definitions of the term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's not the same thing as a paper encyclopedia. Maybe we should change the term used? But the point is, if someone nominates something for deletion due to a disagreement with the "ordinary" definition, that should not be used unless the article nominated fails the "Wikipedia" definition and/or official policy like WP:V, etc. But you seem to propose that, alone, notability is no reason for deletion. But how to keep Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information, and a directory, in accordance with official WP:NOT policy? Maybe it should not be called "notability", but a policy/guideline that elaborates on those points and tells us exactly what the bar is for inclusion is what is needed. How do we determine what is directory-like and what is not? I could put an article up about Dave's little dog across the street plus a phone number to call if people want to check the facts. Now, issues of lit-up switchboards aside, you could technically call this "verifiable", but if these things were to pile up, Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a directory of indiscriminate information. What the present notability guideline on WP:N details is that in order to be on Wikipedia, a subject must have significant amounts of published information on it -- "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources". Perhaps "notability" is not the right word to due all the "load" it carries, so maybe the terminology should be changed. But the reason for calling this "notability" is because "notability" means "worthy of note", and the purpose of the policy is to determine what things are worthy enough to have a "note" made of them on Wikipedia. Hence, "note - ability", or "notability". See? I would NOT call this a "quixotic" or "totally subjective" matter. 70.101.147.74 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * >But how to keep Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information, and a directory, in accordance with official WP:NOT policy?
 * By recourse to exant Policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. See  below (in a few minutes; I'll be posting it after I submit this reply) for a fuller and more authoritative examination of this issue that I can probably muster on my own.
 * > I could put an article up about Dave's little dog across the street plus a phone number to call if people want to check the facts...you could technically call this "verifiable"...
 * &lt;laugh&gt; That's amusing, but it isn't Verifiability. Please actually read WP:V and the Guidlines relating to it on citing sources.
 * > ...Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a directory of indiscriminate information...
 * That's self-evidently false, since it didn't actually happen or come close to happening in the absence of WP:NN, now did it? QED. :-)
 * > What the present notability guideline on WP:N details is that in order to be on Wikipedia, a subject must have significant amounts of published information on it -- "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources".
 * Yes, in direct contravention of actual Policy on the topic. WP:NN is exceeding its mandate as an (erstwhile) Guideline.
 * Anyway, I'm well aware of the definitions (there are more than one) of the word "notability" (see elsewhere above). And you're prefectly free to call notability whatever you like, as am I.  I don't see anything substantive in your reply with regard to why WP:NN is not quixotic and totally subjective, only fallacious handwringing, riddled with appeal to probability, the fallacy of the slippery slope, and the appeal to consequences variant of appeal to emotion (specifically fear or perhaps more to the point FUD).  The general pro-WP:NN position here can further be identified as suffering from a lot of wishful thinking, red herrings, appeal to the majority, argument from conviction, and the correlation implies causation fallacy.  There are more that apply both to the general defense of NN and to the insistence that it is (or will be) objective and practicable, but I think the point is made already. There are serious logic flaws in this proposition, and the vast bulk of the responses to the issues I've raised are simply handwaving and misdirection that do not actually address any substantive criticism of WP:NN raised thus far.  Not surprising since nothing at all about this debate has changed in years. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, hi. It seems to me that there is something real, and not subjective, that some of us are trying to put our finger on with this clunky concept we call "notability".  Let's suppose that's a misnomer, and try to see if there really is something there.  I'll describe it to you as I understand it, ok?
 * I have this idea that verifiability is a quality we require of content. As such, it doesn't really address the question of how content should be collected into individial articles, the question of "graining", if you will.  Should our coverage be more coarse-grained or fine-grained, in the sense of having more articles about narrower topics, or fewer articles about broader topics?  The same content could be included either way.  This question properly arises in connection with merging and splitting discussions.
 * There's also a question of how we implement aspects of WP:NOT, such as Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's material in the world that is verifiable, such as my home address, various aspects of my employment history, certain personal legal records, etc.  My reading of WP:NOT, which I seem to share with many others, is that such material is inappropriate for Wikipedia - it's not "encyclopedic", because I'm not anyone special.  (My mother thinks I am, but you know what I mean...)
 * Getting to the point, the way I see this guideline - by any other name - properly used, is to help determine merging/splitting questions, and to implement WP:NOT in cases like I described, where we have information that is perfectly verifiable, and entirely unremarked upon by humankind. Those are the questions that I see being addressed by the requirement that a subject, in order to get its own article, have "non-trivial coverage in multiple indpendent published sources".
 * My questions for you, SMcCandlish, are two: Do you find it reasonable to implement such a requirement, by any name? What do you think it should be called, if not "notability"? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GT: No disagreement with you on verifiability or merging/splitting. I don't think WP:NOT (or WP:NFT, WP:VANITY, etc.) are bad ideas.  My concerns are with: 1) WP:NN in particular, especially is vagueness and overbreadth, its usurpation of actual policy, its trampling on the efforts to create narrow topic-/type-specific notability criteria (compare the States' rights issue, if you will ;-), etc.  I've drafted a (topical) notability guideline myself, that does not depend on NN, but on V, NPOV, etc. - which is what detractors of NN and its ancestors have been urging for 3 years or so.  2) The process by which WP:NN has become an alleged Guideline and effectively silenced competiting ideas, as well as been WP:OWNed at the most significant points in its trajectory to the present.  3) Dependence on NN in AfD and SD, such that articles are deleted largely on NN grounds when they should have been deleted on V, NPOV, NFT, NOT, etc. ground, which masks inappropriate deletion of articles that suffer no such policy faults, or which can be easily fixed to not suffer them.  On to other subtopics: Your home address, etc., are not what is meant by WP:V; please read it more closely.  This (usually accidental) strawman argument comes up in this debate way too often...  The "questions that &#91;you&#93; see being addressed" may well be legit questions, but which as suggested elsewhere above can and should be handled by topic/type-specific notability criteria, not by the overbroad wet blanket of a non-consensus "guideline" like NN.  To answer your closing questions, re: "non-trivial coverage in multiple indpendent published sources": What you may not realized is that I don't even disagree with these criteria.  What is screwy about them is that they directly contradict WP Policy on the topic in WP:V, which a Guideline does not have the authority to do.  If Wikipedians want to update WP:V to use this more stringent criterion, I believe I would be supportive of this move.  I don't think it should be "called" anything, it should just be a broad-consensus update to WP:V.  "Notability" should be a topical guideline subject consisting of advice on ''how to interpret Policies such as V and NPOV, and non-controversial Guidelines like NFT and NOT, within the particular articlespace to which they apply" (such as the Notability (bands) guideline).  Or to say it another way, WP:NN should be folded into WP:V and wherever else it could improve something else, and notability return to being a strictly topical/typical process, codified in one mature, consensus guideline at a time in WP:DP, row 2.  Anyway, I've really already said all of this before, in the two threads immediately before the "Aggregation" topic immediately above.&mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't...
 * breathe...
 * must...
 * outdent...
 * Ah. That's better.  So, I'm understanding you to an extent, but I'm not entirely clear yet.  Please pardon my denseness.
 * Regarding my home address, I was pretty sure I was familiar with the contents of WP:V, but I read it again, as you suggested, quite carefully. I am now certain that nothing there precludes adding my home address as a piece of verifiable information.  The sources one could cite have the requisite "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  Nothing on that page prevents the inclusion of utterly trivial but verifiable information.  If I'm wrong, please point out the clause that does so.
 * Moving on, I'm not aware of how this guideline has "trampled on" any subject-specific ones. Have you provided examples of that somewhere, or could you?
 * Your point #2 I'm not particularly worried about, because I'm only interested in how we can get a guideline is place that's correct and that people can agree upon. If we can figure out what the guideline should say and what to call it, or where to merge it, or whatever, then I'm happy to leave it to the historians to sort out how we got there.
 * I don't understand how "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources" directly contradicts WP:V, as you say; it seems to me that it strengthens it, and provides a means of addressing the problem of "graining", which WP:V does not address (and should not, for reasons of scope).
 * Regarding the "vagueness and overbreadth" of WP:NN, I'm still wondering what you think of the recent edits, in which we've tried to pin down the objective sense of "notability" that many of us seem to share, using the word "notability" as a technical term here, with a Wikipedia-specific meaning. The term could vary, but there is something objective that is different from mere verifiability.
 * You've said that an objective and agreed-upon defition of notability at Wikipedia is a "pipe-dream", but many of us seem not to see it that way, and it's certainly not obvious to me that you're right. Can you explain why the idea of notability that I'm talking about is unworkable?  Have I clearly enough explained that I'm talking about a separate concept from verifiability?  I find it pretty clear, but I'm not sure I've done the best job of articulating it.
 * "Verifiability" is not the correct word for the criterion that tells us to merge the one sentence of verifiable information about Bill Clinton's high school band into the Bill Clinton article. Either way, we keep the information, but it's the notability guideline telling us that the high school band falls short of getting its own separate article.
 * Regarding the question: "why not merge notability (as I'm seeing it) into verifiability?" My main reason is that it's a different idea - content is verifiable; topics are notable.  Content is arranged into topics.  Notability tells us which topics to include; verifiability tells us which content to include on those topics.  I think conflating these ideas would involve too many equivocations, and we should be making our policy and guidelines more clear, not less.
 * By now I suspect I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop. I hope I've clarified what I mean by the word "notability", and how that's a different thing from verifiability. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * > Regarding my home address...
 * You can put your home address in there and cite a source that verifies it, but that doesn't make your article verifiable, only that particular tiny fact. WP:V is about everything in an article being verifiable.  Putting a single (in this "address" example, totally trivial) verifiable fact in will not save some random garage band's otherwise WP:V-violating article from being subject to deletion under WP:V.
 * > Moving on, I'm not aware of how this guideline has "trampled on" any subject-specific ones...
 * It's a categorical not example-based concept. WP:NN aims to set overly-broad and vague blanket notability standards for all of WP, while the (generally actually consensus-based, and in many cases aborbed-into-policy at WP:DP) topical ones have differing criteria that address the notability needs of particular types of articles or article topics, which differ widely.  I am getting the strong feeling that you are #$%&ing around here.  I am dead certain that your English language comprehension skills are good enough for you to have already figured out my meaning by now from what's already been written, despite your "denseness" faux-disclaimer.  I have better things to do that repeat myself, and others have better things to do that read me do it in response to borderline trolling like this.  I've been trying very hard to presume good faith in this, but it's getting more difficult the more times you respond to my answers with the same questions.  See the other recently-active topics on this page immediately above the one that introduces these "Example" sub-sections; I've already covered virtually everthing discussed here in even more detail.  Please read and digest all of that before responding again with redundant debate.
 * > Nothing on &#91;WP:V&#93; prevents the inclusion of utterly trivial but verifiable information.
 * But WP:DP, row 2 (which is also Policy) does, in conjunction with WP:NPOV, WP:VANITY, WP:SPAM, WP:NFT, WP:NOT, etc., etc. WP:DP codifies a consensus-driven and so far as I can tell almost entirely non-controversial process of importing into Policy (at WP:DP) those specific, narrow guidelines on particular topics (bands, for example) or types of articles (e.g., biographies) that are specific, scope-limited, carefully constructed and important enough to achieve broad consensus.  It's a long standing process, and it works.  Again, I'm not an opponent of notability criteria, just of WP:NN as a blanket version smothering the rest, many of which predate WP:NN with a rich history of debate and consensus-building.
 * > I'm only interested in how we can get a guideline is place that's correct and that people can agree upon.
 * We already have Policy in place (see immediately preceding response), so no such guideline is needed. "Correct" is a subjective, almost religious or mystical concept, in this context.  The best we can hope for is a consensus compromise.  But the problem is we aren't getting compromise (something "that people can agree upon") with the present direction (WP:NN).  It's been three years and the pro vs. con debate has not budged, not one metaphoric milimeter, on any single substantive point whatsoever.  It is not working.  Meanwhile, in case no one has noticed, topical, limited, narrow, specific notability criteria that have jack all to do with WP:NN have been flourishing quite happily and with a bare minimum of controversy, even to the point of being adopted directly into Policy via WP:DP.  Interesting.  Ever wonder why that is?
 * > I don't understand how "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources" directly contradicts WP:V
 * I've already covered this about 5 times. WP:V sets a sourcing standard.  WP:V is a Policy.  WP:NN wants to set a new standard (in this case a much more stringent one that conflicts with WP:V's permissiveness).  WP:NN is a Guideline, supposedly.  Even if we accept that it is a legit Guideline for the sake of argument, Policies trump Guidelines.  Game over.  Next.
 * > ...many of us seem not to see &#91;that WP:NN is subjective&#93;, and it's certainly not obvious to me that you're right. Can you explain why the idea of notability that I'm talking about is unworkable?
 * It may not have occurred to you that I'm not trying to convince you in particular. From what I can tell, your reality tunnel on this topic is already set in stone and no amount of logic (much less passion, faith, etc., which I tend to eschew) are going to change your mind.  You keep asking me the same questions, in slightly different wording over and over again.  I think other readers without either this desire to argue for argument's sake, or inability to follow me because I don't write in a style that parses well for you, or whatever it is, will understand me just fine.  I don't have infinite time and patience to re-re-re-explain the same basic facts and inferences from them to the same person.  Sorry.  I'm not being uncivil here, just honest.  Next.
 * > but it's the notability guideline telling us that &#91;Clinton's&#93; high school band falls short of getting its own separate article &#91 as opposed to being merged&#93;.
 * That's absurd. The WP:-namespace page you are thinking of is WP:MERGE.  Wikipedia articles have been merged for years, for precisely the same reasons we merge them today, yet WP:NN has been an alleged Guideline for only a few months.  Get real, man. Next.
 * > I'm still wondering what you think of the recent edits...
 * Reserving judgement. I don't see that they, thus far, do anything at all to address the concerns I've raised.  Elsewhere here, in at least two places, I've listed faults with WP:NN all in a row, in the same sentence, so I'm not going to repeat them again (hint: search for "usurp" as a keyword).  Next. &lt;yawn&gt;
 * > &#91;you recast my argument as:&#93; "why not merge notability (as I'm seeing it) into verifiability?"
 * Straw man. I didn't suggest that; I suggested merging the useful parts of WP:NN that could be (given consensus on them as individual concepts and as Policy edits) applicable WP-wide into WP:V and other Policies (and non-controverial Guidelines like NFT, NOT, VANITY, etc.), letting "local" (topical/typical) notabiity guidlines like 'Notability (bio)' handle notability as it applies to the topics/article types that guideline covers, and abandoning the rest of WP:NN as subjective claptrap and scope overbreadth. Please pay more attention to what I actually write rather than arguing against what you wish I'd written because it would be easier to debate against. &lt;sigh&gt;  Next. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ
 * I'm not going to respond in detail to most of this, but I do feel compelled to address this point, which is a good example of how misunderstandings multiply. If you could see into my mind as I was typing my previous message, you would see that I wasn't trying to "recast" your argument at all.  I was really doing nothing more, from my perspective, than make a pointer to your own words: "Or to say it another way, WP:NN should be folded into WP:V and wherever else it could improve something else".  I may have abbreviated too much to convey the nuance of what you were saying, but I wasn't trying to faithfully reproduce it, just point to it.  A "straw man" in an fallacy wherein I characterize your argument as something weaker that I can defeat.  Since I'm not trying to "defeat" you, but to achieve mutual understanding, I'm not going to be setting up effigies to defeat.  I don't even consider this a debate, but rather a process of people finding out what the other one means.  If it were abundantly clear to me from your words so far that you know what I mean, I wouldn't be "repeating myself".  Apparently senseless repetition is a good sign that the person doing it does not feel understood, and they're trying again. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can agree with that (especially your last sentence!), and I understand where you were coming from. I do hope that it is clear that this has been a debate/argument for many, for a long time (see  - the debate has not substantively changed at all in years).  Because of this, over-summarizations of someone's position can easily be mistaken for straw men. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * > content is verifiable; topics are notable.
 * Fallacy of the false dichotomy. Topics consist of nothing but content, and any bit of content can form a topic (not necessarily one that will survive any process of WP:DP, mind you, but that's immaterial).  You're making an inverse-Korzybskian error here.  If I write an article on Clinton and mention that someone in his high school band (to continue with your example) dyed her hair green in their junior year together (with citations to prove it), well that's content that even survives WP:V, but it is also not important or of encyclopedic value in any way (i.e., it's non-notable).  Under 'Notability (bio)' (a non-WP:NN-based notability criteria guideline I am not disputing, remember) this content goes bye-bye.  The Snorkelweasel Foundation for Mutant Children Raised by Undersea House Cats from Jupiter is a topic, but can't be verified, and so is subject to AfD (well, in this super-silly example, SD, since it's patent gibberish). Next. &lt;yawn again&gt; &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ
 * You didn't understand what I meant when I said "content is verifiable; topics are notable". I'll try to clarify that when I post again. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * > Notability tells us which topics to include...
 * Notability via consensus-built, narrow, topic/type-specific guidelines such as WP:WEB and the bio and bands, etc., guidelines can help do this. WP:NN is an alternative to that much more established and clearly workable and less controversial system, that its proponents simply have not (I theorize cannot) justify, so they resort to revert warring to promote their pet essay into a wannabe Guideline.  Get it yet?  One does not have to be a general opponent of notability criteria in Wikipedia to be a WP:NN critic (or improver, if one thinks this chimera is actually salvageable), nor does one have to be a WP:NN supporter to support the idea that notability criteria are of value here. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ
 * You seem to be taking a different meaning than I'm intending from the word "notability". Until we straighten that out, no communication can occur.  If you think I'm proposing an "alternative" to topic-specific guidelines, then you have no idea where I'm coming from, because I'm not. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then please do explain your take (the new topic mentioned just below would probably be a good place; we're getting very indented here...) I have to attempt to clarify that my position is that WP:NN inherently is "an 'alternative' to topic-specific guidelines" (as well as a conflict with at least two Policies), so it is very unclear to me what direction you are proposing we go in.  Looking forward to hearing it. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, rather than than reply yet again with the same questions, why don't you start a new topic, explaining what you mean by "addressing the problem of 'graining' &#91;I think you may be thinking of granularity, but I'm not sure&#93; ", and "the objective sense of "notability"? It's certainly unclear, to me at least, what these phrases are intended to convey (and more to the point what they could do positively for Wikipedia). &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ
 * I'll start that new topic after I've chewed a bit more, and come up with a better articulation than I've apparently been able to muster so far. "Granularity" certainly was the word I was looking for; thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 
 * &#91;Because of "outdenting" above, the subtopic below appears to be a response to the one immediately above this line; it is not, but is rather a response to one farther up above. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ &#93;


 * Well, I would like you to therefore explain the following:
 * 1. How is the definition on WP:N "totally subjective"?
 * 2. Where exactly  are all these "fallacies" in my argument? You might want to start by pointing out where they are instead of just writing up a laundry-list of different fallacies. After all, these discussions are supposed to be constructive, now aren't they? I do not see those problems with my argument, and if you point out where they are I might be able to. Now, if you want to get rid of notability as a deletion criterion in itself, and return it to a simple policy interpretation guide, maybe you should talk to some of those who are using it in WP:AFD. What is needed here is consensus. Wikipedia operates on consensus. 70.101.147.74 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any response? I need to know this... if there really is a problem with my argument I would like it detailed for me. I'm not a shut box who dogmatically believes one specific thing is The Truth(TM), after all... 70.101.147.74 04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "therefore" in this context. I've already deeply explained the subjectivity issues elsewhere on this talk page, so I won't go into it again; do your own reading, please.  As for the fallacies, it is not my job to tell you how to construct better logical arguments.  I won't catch the fish for you.  Read the referenced articles and study your own arguments while thinking about them.  "If you want to get rid of notability &#91;in WP:DEL#Problem articles where deletion may be needed&#93;..." Gaahhh! Run for the hills! Its the attack of SuperMechaStrawMan!  I've said again and again that those are the only notability guidelines that are valid deletion criteria, since they've been absorbed into actual WP Policy at WP:DEL (or WP:NUKE if you prefer; I restored that dead shortcut a few hours ago).    Please.  Enough with the utterly transparent handwaves.  Lastly, the fact that people are relying upon WP:NN to short-circuit WP:DEL (namely by using WP:SD's A7 in conjunction with WP:NN as an alleged Guideline to ignore the fact that WP:DEL enumerates, and was clearly intended to enumerate only those Notability Guidelines that had the necessary consensus to be used as actionable deletion criteria in their own right.) Dammit this is tiresome.  I'm sorry if this really is as hard for you to absorb as you are trying so hard to impress upon us that it is.  If it is, I suggest dropping your involvement here and finding something more fulfilling for you.  If you're just trolling, cut it out.  This isn't alt.flame. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did look at my argument, I couldn't see exactly where the problem is, but I'll take a guess at one: The "appeal to probability" was because I was saying "without notability, Wikipedia might turn into a directory" and thus assume that WP will turn into a directory and thus we must have notability (= WP:N). So maybe I did make some mistakes. But I am going to now discuss something else however: Do you believe that notability (not just WP:N but notability in general) is a good criterion for deletion? You seem to, since you support the guidelines like WP:MUSIC, etc. which are already mentioned in Official Policy. Now, what I suggest is that WP:N should still exist as a guideline, but perhaps not in the form it does now. Notability has been used here for a long time, and I don't see it going away. We also need to make clear that it is not a criterion for deletion in and of itself, but as a way to provide correct interpretations of Wikipedia Official Policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. that ultimately govern the deletion, AND stop the abuse of WP:SD's A7 or WP:NUKE's "Subject of article fails these notability guidelines". You, however, seem to suggest that WP:N should be scrapped completely, being reverted to just a low-status essay. In other words, you may indeed be right that WP:N should be used for deletion in itself, but I do not suggest scrapping it completely. I didn't read every post you've made here (there's so many!), so maybe I missed something, but how would you propose to end the abuse of notability for deleting things not mentioned in the WP:NUKE agreed-upon notability-deletion guidelines? The reason I'm asking is because that the mindset of a lot of people and administrators here is "NN, delete, NN, delete, etc."! How would you propose to get that to change? Oh, and this is not trolling, I am trying to hold a legitimate discussion here. It is not "hard to absorb", it's just that I seem to notice some problems, but then again maybe there aren't any. Like I said, I am not a shut box and am willing to modify or change my position. And if you think this debate is tiring for you, it's tiring for me too, so this might be my last post, at least in this thread, for a while. I'd like to get on to something else. But before I go, I would like the answer to that key question: How do you propose to get rid of the "NN, delete" mindset? 70.101.147.74 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Already covered most of this. The super-short version is, I don't have a problem with notability being used as a deletion criterion, when it is applied as per WP:DEL's list of actionable notability criteria (nor any problem with notability-related and non-controversial critera like WP:NOT, WP:VANITY and WP:NFT).  I don't have a problem with that list in WP:DEL expanding, carefully, on a true consensus basis - it's a long-standing and pretty non-controversial process (what controversy there is seems to be about this or that particular candidate for inclusion, not that section of WP-DEL itself, though there are some detractors, and I actually used to be one of them myself, as clearly is/was der &uuml;ber-Jimbo; cf. large quote on the topic cited elsewhere).  I do have a problem with the robotic "Delete &mdash; NN" mindset in AfD, but believe that problem to be WP:NN itself, with its vagueness and overbreadth and "everything is a nail to be hammered" mindset, not WP:DEL's narrower and more careful notability guidelines.  If WP:NN goes bye-bye and WP:DEL's notability stuff is expanded, I think that people will have to cite notability specifics, that apply to the targeted article in particular, the way they used to, instead of just hitting their "'Delete &mdash; NN" macro like an automaton. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Now I'm done debating for now. 70.101.147.74 01:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. The point is not that "notable architecture" is not objectively defined; the point is that a category by that name is not objectively defined, since the category called "architecture" already contains only notable items - it is assumed that non-notable architecture (such as my neighbor's garage) does not have a Wikipedia article. ( Radiant ) 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The proposal specifically states that "notable architecture" is "not objectively defined" (QED); your first sentence simply defies appeared to simply defy reality.  The proposal does not concern itself with category names, but with the categorization of articles.  Please read the proposal more closely.  The criteria it lays out demonstrate wrongheaded reasons to categorize articles, the examples including the idea that that notability is an objective categorization reason or methodology.  Now, as to your second point, I agree that the the example doesn't work very well for that proposal because of the presumption of notability of extant article subjects in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.  The point of this = = = Example 3 =  = = here really has nothing to do with how well-written the proposal is, just that editors of another WP proposal on conventions declared notability "not objective", which is evidence of lack of consensus on notability.  It is perhaps not the strongest example in the list here, but there's no reason to totally ignore it either.  &#91;All that said, I think the text of that proposal should be edited to use a better example; if this is done, I'll change the ref. above to a History copy that still has the text.&#93;&mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do check who wrote that proposal. ( Radiant ) 22:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my fault if you too are confused about whether notability is objective or not. >;-) Seriously, though, while I can concede that you probably know what you meant better than I do, I think my overall point still stands, because the average reader (who cannot psychically detect your intended meaning) is likely to conclude that notability is categorically (no pun intended) subjective.  That is, to modify my above statement based on this incoming information: Editors of another WP proposal on conventions can be reasonably interpreted to have declared notability "not objective", which only increases the lack of consensus on notability, and demonstrates that the concept is wishy-washy and open to too much interpretation.  (To be clear, I concede that I did in fact misinterpret the overcat proposal's language; I am modifying the use of it here as an example, rather than completely striking it, because I think it still has evidentiary value, though rather reduced.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: &#91;This is humor, OK?&#93; Re: "it is assumed that non-notable architecture (such as my neighbor's garage) does not have a Wikipedia article" &mdash; See "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability" (the inverse is true as well.) And if OJ kills again, in your neighbor's garage, it might well be "notable". >;-)  &#91;End humor.&#93; &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NB: GTBacchus and 70.101.147.74 each dropped a line on my talk page assuring me that they are not trolling me, and expressing some upset at the suspicion/accusation, and I believe them, so I retract it and apologize, pleading temporary insanity at being asked the same questions (mostly by different people here) too many times. I should not let frustration lead to a lapse in civility. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 4
WP:NN being promoted to "Guideline" at all, the demotion of Non-notability to "Rejected" status and various other one-sided changes over strenuous opposition (changes that appear in several cases to have violated the revert rule and otherwise broken policies and long-standing real guidelines) are all the subject of a Request for Arbitration (ongoing as of this writing) that demonstrate in the starkest daylight the lack of consensus on this issue and this "guideline". It's a fascinating read. See its Talk page too, for even more. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that this RFAr was opened "to address the questions of how policy is made and what consensus means". Among others, it is quite clear about the fact that WP:NNOT was rejected, as is its talk page. ( Radiant ) 12:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Au contraire as to your second sentence (though absolutely as to the first). It is alleged in this RfAr (indeed the entire point of it seems to be) that NNOT was marked as "Rejected" and NN was marked as a "Guideline", by you and other named parties in contravention of sustantial objection (i.e. lack of consensus) and that these one-sided moves were defended in contravention of WP:OWN and WP:3RR.  I was on a wikibreak at the time or I wouldn't have stood for it, but the logs cited speak for themselves.  Unless I'm missing something NNOT was (actually, still is) under discussion and was not subjected to a thorough consensus building process, only to straw polls which are meaningless.  I'm not going to argue further on this point here; that's what the RfAr is for.  Those with opinions either way are asked by the ArbCom to post on the talk page, and to put any actual evidence about the issue on the /Evidence page under that RfAr.
 * Disclaimer: Just to be clear, I don't have anything personal against you (you'll note I supported most of your changes to the Overcategorization proposal linked to above), and don't support NNOT (in its present draft, at any rate) as a Guideline. I'm concerned, like the ArbCom, about the process. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The RFAr contains this finding-of-fact: "Wikipedia:Non-notability clearly failed to achieve consensus and was appropriated tagged "Rejected,"" ( Radiant ) 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hadn't noticed that. Conceded.  Note that no counter-finding has been made that WP:NN did achieve consensus and was appropriately tagged "Guideline", which is the crux of the RfAr, and what I care about here (I've already stated clearly, more than once, that I was not a supporter of WP:NNOT.) So, again the substantive issue I raise remains unaddressed, and a handwave attempts to sweep it away.  Do I detect a pattern?  It's one that doesn't work on me, after 13 years on Usenet. >;-) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the pattern :) although I haven't met an editor as versed in rhetoric as you for quite a while (which always makes for nice discussions). The ArbCom case is indeed fascinating, but its crux is not which pages are and are not guidelines (which in general are not decided by the ArbCom but by the community; there has been a proposal for an Official Policy Council but that didn't go anywhere). Instead, the crux is to clarify the process to arrive at policy/guidelines - hence, the principles that courtesy and consensus are necessary for such, and that basing them on common practice is a good idea. ( Radiant ) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of getting it completely wrong, I'm guessing that you've not quite addressed the thrust of SMcCandlish's point here. He seems to me to be saying that this guideline has not, in fact, achieved consensus, and therefore, according to what you just said, it isn't a guideline.  You haven't directly made a case that this guideline ever achieved consensus, in order to become a guideline, although you have indicated that it reflects common practice.  SMcCandlish, please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this exchange.  I'm quite confident that Radiant isn't making "handwave attempts", but rather trying to address what he sees as the most relevant points.  We're just not quite all on the same wavelength here.  Language is a virus from outer space; I'm confident we'll get there. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as it goes, I think that's a good summary, GT. (I have raised other issues/concerns than this particular one, elsewhere on this page, but this one is accurately characterized.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Example 5
I find it gratifying that the only person who arguably can be said to have a stance on Wikipedia matters that categorically outweighs anyone else's &#91;NOTE: I'm being tongue-in-cheek here; get a sense of humor!&#93;, WikiMedia founder Jimbo Wales, condemns notability (in general) for the same reasons I've been pointing out the flaws in WP:NN (in particular). And I'd never even seen this until an hour ago. GMTA, huh? >;-) In a poll from Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance &mdash; in the original draft of what we are now calling notability, the term used was "fame and importance"; all that's changed since this "ancient" archive (which except for its talk page moved to WP:NN) is the term &mdash; Jimbo personally and sharply raises concerns and criticisms of notability every one of which still stands, as if this were written this afternoon.  Read it for yourself:

 Jimbo Wales - 'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms.)

&#91;...&#93;


 * Jimbo, I agree with you that there are many non-famous items that do belong in Wikipedia, but there are also many verifiable and NPOV-able items that do not belong in Wikipedia. Take some random web page, created by John Doe, age 13. It lists John's favorite TV programs, which Pokemon cards he has, etc. Is this verifiable? Certainly the contents of the web page are verifiable. Can it be written about in a NPOV fasion. Sure. Should it be in Wikipedia? I sure hope not. Obviously, this is an extreme case. My point is that we must think very carefully before we make any blanket statements about what should or should not be included. -Anthropos 18:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * This example proves my point, though, doesn't it? It isn't the lack of fame that makes the page objectionable, it's the lack of verifiability.  It's just someone's random musings about a private matter, and there's no way for external confirmation or disconfirmation.  Therefore, it isn't encyclopedic.  'Qubit field theory' on the other hand, is encyclopedic, precisely because there's a scientific paper about it, so we can say that thus-and-such Cambridge physicist proposed such-and-so theory, blah blah blah.  And that's valuable. Jimbo Wales 18:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

&#91;More third-party replies to the topic can be found here. But really, see the entire Talk page: Nothing has changed in this debate in almost three years!&#93; 

Just like I and numerous others have been saying all year (and then some, in the case of people who've been aware of this debate for longer than I have): It's all about WP:V and WP:NPOV. We do not need WP:NN as a guideline. (I have no objections to it remaining as the simple Essay/Proposal it actually is; it just needs its questionable Guideline treplaced. You know, the one that was added over many objections, in violation of the WP:3RR Policy, the WP:CON Guideline, etc., etc., as documented in the RfAr at  above.)

Proposal: Restore both NN and NNOT to Proposal status, and start WikiProject Notability consensus to see if consensus can actually be reached. It appears to me to be utterly incontrovertible that this goal (whether its one you support or not) has remained unapproachable in the talkspace of competing, disputed proposals and essays. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "argumentum ad jimbonem" is pretty much a fallacy around here. Note that the quote you give is from 2004; in a more recent quote (albeit still from 2005) Jimbo endorses deletion of articles that do not assert notability. You cannot compare this guideline (which accurately describes the status quo) to NNOT (an attempted legislation that was strongly rejected). I note that all your points #1-#5 so far have been based upon incorrect assumptions or interpretations. ( Radiant ) 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * &#91;sigh&#93; I guess no one has a sense of humor any more. I thought it was pretty clear that I was being tongue-in-cheek. The point was, to reiterate: Nothing substantive about the notability debate has changed in three years, ergo there is no consensus on the issue.  I thought using Jimbo's posts as the example would be amusing, but oh well.  Whether they are or not is irrelevant.  Igoring the fact raised (that the debate is a broad and long-standing standoff, and standoffs are defnitionally not a consensus) with a misdirecting handwave about having used Jimbo's material as evidentiary, is a strawman argument (and an association fallacy, besides, of the form "because you appear to have relied upon Jimbo to make one point, and doing so is fallacious, all your points must be wrong"; but the strawman aspect is more important.  As I've said elsewhere, the actually substantive concerns raised by me or anyone else about WP:NN remain unaddressed). &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: A wikipedia search on "Argumentum ad jimbonem" reveals only two hits: you, and Uncle G, who uses it both pro and con, so your assertion that Argumentum ad jimbonem (note the redlink redlink as of this writing) is "is pretty much a fallacy around here" is bogus; its your own neologism, and not used by anyone. But, I think it should be considered a WP fallacy, because it's a form of the argument to authority.  I.e., I get and support your point, but don't try to snow us, please. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing the irony; people invoke Jimbo all too often because they think that strengthens their argument (check his talk page for some funny issues). That makes what I said a straw man as to the rest of your post, so let me elaborate. I disagree that nothing substantive has changed in the past three years: we have literally exploded in size, and this has all sorts of nasty side effects such as OTRS, a "shoot on sight" order regarding advertisements and libel, and an influx of both undesirable editors and undesirable articles which led to stricter ways of dealing with both. One might say that eventualism is losing grip because we have already crossed most bounds most eventualists figured we would eventually cross.
 * Yes, I like Jimbo's Talk page; I try to read it weekly for the humor value, especially after getting into imbroglios like this one. However, I just remembered that actual Policy quotes Jimbo as authoritative, as a matter of Policy (see for example WP:SPP, and there are others), so despite my original ironic intent I feel compelled to retract support for the notion that Arg. ad J. in the context of WP is fallacious as a variant of Arg. ad auth., at least categorically speaking.  Policy would have to be amended in various places to make that the case.  Heh.&mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I find the argument that we do not need a certain guideline unconvincing; indeed, we do not need any guidelines, that's what we have policy for, and per WP:IAR we do not even need that. The intent of Wikipedia is that people can edit without having to know the "rules", and hence most rules can be said to flow from common sense (for some definition of "common"). One of the main points of guidelines is to write down common practice.
 * By the way I couldn't resist writing the Argumentum ad Jimbonem page; feel free to copyedit. ( Radiant ) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. May be challenging given WP:SPP, etc. :-) &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Noticeability instead
Notable is noticeable in a good way. Something that is noticeable may not qualify as notable. Since this guideline is talking about the worthwhile of writing an article, the wording should be changed to "Noticeablity" instead. It is totally ridiculous to have some notorious criminals listed as notable alumni. These people are only noticeable. Miaers 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored and does not exclude things that you personally think to be "bad". And notability is not subjective.  Uncle G 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Notable" does exclude things since it can refer to something that is good. On the otherhand, "Noticeability" is completely neutral and doesn't exclude anything no matter good or bad. Miaers 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Notability has nothing to do with whether you personally think that someone is a "criminal".  Once again:  Your personal opinion of whether something is "good" or "bad" is not how Wikipedia is built or should be built, and your redefinition of notability as "noticeable in a good way" is not how notability has ever been defined. Uncle G 18:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO WIkipedia uses notable as a local technical term, and has since long before I became involved. Changing it is not worth the trouble. Andrewa 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a logical error in your first sentence, syllogistically it's an attempted I->A inference. Andrewa 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I find this bullet point format incredibly clumsy compared to indentation. Andrewa 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * &lt;p&gt; is your friend. &#9786; Uncle G 18:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I choose my friends carefully. Using something that looks like HTML (even if it isn't) embedded in wikitext isn't good IMO. There are other things about the bullet points I don't like too. Just my personal opinion. Andrewa 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
 * I disagree. Primary definition of notable: "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable". That's exactly what we want. The secondary definition ("Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent") is not the one used. So a criminal is a notable alumnus if they are an alumnus worthy of note - it doesn't imply anything about them being 'good'. Is this the only reason you've added a disputed tag? Trebor 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Notable alumni refers to the "remarkable" part of notable. Since this guideline is a general one. It should use the neutral "noticeability" instead. Miaers 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with referring to "remarkable"? They are notorious criminals, thus worthy of remark. I fail to see the difference between "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable" for notable, and "Worthy of notice; significant" for noticeable. They mean, in essence, the same thing. Trebor 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC):::::Well, I've never hear someone says "a remarkable criminal" or "a notable criminal". I guess most people don't think the way you do. Miaers 18:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * End of moved text


 * I believe Miaers is not disputing any of the rules for including anything, just the terminology. However, I think "notability" doesn't necessarily imply "good" and "noticeability" is just plain awkward. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Notability can mean something good. That is why people don't say things like "a notable criminal" or "a notable terrorist". How can noticeability be awkward as a techinical term? All technical terms are awkard. You are just not professional enough to like it. Does "Worthiness of written records" sound awkward too? Miaers 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am actually pretty sure I have heard a construction along the lines of "notable criminal" before - something like "notable mob boss so-and-so..." Not particularly common, but it isn't a nonsensical construction in English. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As Trebor mentions above, notability's primary definition is "worthy of notice". It has been used here under this definition for a very long time.  It can mean something good, but does not necessarily carry any value judgement.  If you are concerned that notorius criminals are listed as "notable alumni" in some university's article, please address that issue directly on the talk page for the university.  -- Rick Block (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if this guideline uses notatability instead of "noticeability" or "worthiness of writting records", people can use this guideline as an excuse to put a notorious person on a university's notable alumni list. Miaers 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that would be accurate, according to what the word "notable" means. You seem to be in the minority stating that "notable" has to mean "good".  I've always thought of the word "notable" as being value neutral - the value judgment, if any, is usually clear from context.  Would it bother you less if the list were titled: "Noted alumni"? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Noted" and "notable" share the same root. If you think noted means something good, notable is definitely on the good side, too. I don't think Wikipedia is only interested in positive things. You are using the wrong word. Miaers 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think "noted" means something good. That was my point.  I was trying to use a word that you might agree is value-neutral.  I also have no problem listing notorious criminals as...famous(?) alumni of a university.  If you want a word that means something positive, and you want to exclude the notorious from the list, then I would suggest "celebrated" alumni or something, but I wouldn't go that way, as it entails making value judgements that aren't our place as an encyclopedia.  I prefer to use a neutral word like "notable" and just include the good, the bad, and the ugly. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Infamous" is probably what you want in the example above, but yes, "notable" nonetheless. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Infamous" is precisely the word I don't want. I was grasping for a word indicating well-known-ness to Miaers in a way that he would hear as value-neutral.  Since he thinks that "notable" has positive connotations, I'm not sure what a more neutral word would be, to him, but I doubt it's "infamous". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Noted" (largely positive), "notable" (neutral), and "notorious" (largely negative, except in slang &mdash; cf. "bad" meaning "good") all come from the same root, so your (Miaers's) sub-point here is moot. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is a guideline for whether an article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, not for inclusion criteria for members of lists titled "notable x". IMO, a person being notable and that person being an alumnus of some university does not necessarily make them a "notable alumnus".  In the context of articles about universities, "notable alumni" has an implication of "academically notable" (Nobel Prize winners, etc.), but I would expect this to work negatively as well (I'd include famous academic frauds in such lists).  On the other hand, this point has essentially nothing to do with this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear hear! &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I've never thought of "notable" as having positive or negative connotations - simply as "worthy or note". Perhaps your experiences differ. But as Rick Block said, this isn't particularly relevant here anyway. Trebor 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I "notice" my mailbox all the time, but I don't think that makes it a good article candidate. :-/  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll say people check their mailbox and notice things that stand out or derserve attention. Notable definitely excludes some kind of things that are very bad. In that sense, the policy contradicts the Neutral point of view. Maybe Worthiness to write, Significance, Importance, Impact etc. should be used to replace notable. Miaers 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You said "notable definitely excludes some kind of things that are very bad". How does it do that? How is Worthiness to write, Significance or Importance any different from the definition of notable, which is "worthy of note"? I'm failing to see what your point is. Trebor 20:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Miaers, you seem to be the only one who thinks that "notable" excludes negative types of notoriety. Perhaps you're mistaken about that definition?  The word "notable" is neutral as far as value connotations. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess administrators are not willing to take the trouble to change the wording of this guideline. If notable is completely neutral, then why people don't say such thing as "a notable terrorist"? Miaers 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they do. See SMcCandlish's comment above, with "notable mob-boss".
 * Also, as far as people being unwilling to change the wording of this guideline, there are, on this talk page, at least six or eight people people putting in hours and hours of their lives to try to clarify the wording of this guideline. We're even open to a complete renaming the guideline, possible merging it into some other page - the sky's the limit.  It just so happens that the word notable does not carry positive connotations, or exclude the notorious or the infamous, so that's not really the point we're trying to address here.  Much more strife seems to come from people interpreting "notable" to mean something subjective than from people who attach some value judgement to it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators don't have any extra rights to change the wording of a guideline at any rate. And I think "notable terrorist" is a perfectly fine way to describe OBL. You'd have to show that most people attach a value judgement to "notable" before it would make sense to change the title, because at the moment, that doesn't seem to be true. Trebor 23:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends who says it. A terrorist definitely will use "notable terrorist" to refer to another terrorist. But for those who don't support terrorism, they will use "an key terrorist" instead. Miaers 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...will they? Some evidence of this happening would be useful to your argument. Trebor 18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Miaers, your ideas about these words appear to be entirely your own. For most speakers of English, the word "notable" has no positive connotation.  If you don't believe us, and you don't believe the dictionary, what will you believe?  Like Trebor said, evidence would be good, since you're claiming that the word "notable" has connotations that none of the rest of us seem to hear.  I don't support terrorism, and I'm prefectly comfortable with the construction "notable terrorist". -GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So you basically think Notable and Noticeable are the same. Then why people bother to create these two similar words to convey the same meaning. Isn't that redundant? Obviously, you don't understand the subtle difference between these two words. Miaers 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because these words have multiple definitions. But a couple of their definitions match up so exactly to make them essentially the same word, namely "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable" and "Worthy of notice; significant." They can have different meanings, in certain circumstances, but here the meaning would be the same. Can you explain exactly what is the "subtle difference between these two words"? Trebor 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "notable" and "noticeable" are synonyms, nor did I ever say so. The word "notable" means "worthy of note or remark" with no positive or negative connotations.  The word "noticeable" means "detectable" or "capable of being detected", again with no positive or negative connotations.  The latter word is considerably weaker - lots of things are noticeable without being notable.  My mailbox is noticeable; you're unlikely to walk into it, because it can be detected.  That's what "noticeable" means.  My mailbox isn't notable because it's not noteworthy; there's nothing interesting to say or remark about it.
 * Summary: "Noticeable" means "capable of being detected". "Notable" means "worthy of remark".  Neither carries a value judgement. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus check?
Hi.

I'm curious: why do you object so much to a straw poll to see just how much consensus there is on whether or not "notability" should be used the way it is (including deletion) ? It's not to make any sort of decision (I would not use it for that purpose since Wikipedia is not a democracy) but rather a sort of "research" poll to just see how things are. 70.101.147.74 04:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty tricky to set up a good straw poll that's very useful for collecting information and not prone to abuse. If you just ask people whether "notability" should be a deletion criterion; you'll create a dichotomy based on people's different understanding of the world, we won't be talking about the underlying definitional issues, and we'll be talking past each other yet again.  Then, depending on how many people decide to weigh in, someone's likely to try to use the poll as a cudgel later on.  It's possible to set up a really good poll, at the right point in the discussion.  I'd be happy to help set up a straw poll on this guideline; I've got some ideas on how that would work...
 * I think the trick would be to set up about 3 or 4 different definitions of "notability", taken from discussions that we've had. There's one that was in the guideline for a long time; there's Uncle G's PNC; I'm sure there's more floating around.  For each of these definitions, we could ask (a) Should "notability", by this definition be a criterion we use for deletion?, (b) Should this definition, by some other name, be used as a criterion for deletion?, (c) Is this criterion redundant with other policies/guidelines?, and maybe some kind of (d) or (e).  Besides asking all of those questions about some slate of putative notability criteria, I'd provide places for people to weigh in on any related questions that may arise.
 * Does such a straw poll sound like a good idea, or still premature, or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. What I was asking was more just to see if they would think that an additional criterion of "notability", whatever that means, should be applied in deletion. 70.101.147.74 05:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was done rather recently at Non-notability and all we learned was that, unless you specify what notability means, you get a lot of people complaining that the poll is poorly designed. A majority of respondents did feel that some definition of notability is correctly applied as a deletion criterion.  Seriously, though, a more detailed poll is necessary.  There's no point repeating that one. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the answer. I didn't know about that poll. 70.101.147.74 07:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the WP:NNOT poll, I don't think it is evidenciary of anything whatsoever other than a number of people didn't like that proposal (I had my own problems with it too.) A poll on a contentious proposal like NNOT (or, ahem, NN) is pretty much by definition going to be worthless due to campaigning/canvassing, one "side" or the other having a dominant number of participants, and so forth. It won't turn out any more valid or useful here.  I think a WikiProject Notability consensus would be a lot' more useful in achieving actual consensus.
 * This is a Bad Idea&trade; because polls do not indicate consensus. I can add more wikilinks here about WP is not a democracy, AfD is not a vote, etc., etc., in the same vein, but I'm sure we've all already seen them. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only good I could see coming from it would be, if we're entertaining different definitions of "notability", we could get feedback on what's wrong with various options. It's true that polls do not indicate consensus, and a good poll will say that in bold text at the top, lest anybody get confused on that point.  Polls can be useful for gathering certain kinds of information, but care must always be taken that people don't get the wrong idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are neither made by WikiProjects, nor are they made through voting. Rather, the most effective way of creating a guideline is to write down existing practice. That is precisely what we did here; this page is an accurate description of one of the reasons by which articles are kept, merged or deleted. I am aware that not everybody likes the existing practice, but that is not a very good argument against writing it down; and as we've recently seen, attempted legislation against existing practice is ineffective. ( Radiant ) 11:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not to prove or create a consensus, much less make any sort of decision, it's just to provide a gauge of the current status of the community. And I think that that may be useful. 70.101.147.74 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We had one last month, though. A more effective way of gauging the current status of the community is examing what happens in the community. For instance, go to last week's AFD log and find out if any pages are deleted on grounds of lack of notability. ( Radiant ) 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the results of a similar WP:AFD comb I just did:
 * Nov. 27, 2006 AFD summary as of 20:18 revision (97 AFD noms down to "Linear media")
 * Percentages:
 * - Notability-related: 64.9%
 * - Unrelated/neutral/etc: 35.1%
 * (Criteria used: Nominator only. Nominator mentions notability, significance,
 * Google hits, "vanity", or other "NN"-related reasons. "Unecncylopedic" is not necessarily
 * considered "NN"-related unless specified so, since an article can be "unencyclopedic"
 * regardless of the "notability" of it's subject.)
 * What do you think of that? It seems that the majority of AFDs are due to notability concerns... so what do you think this says about the state of the community? You can do your own combs if you want. 170.215.83.4 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think of that? It seems that the majority of AFDs are due to notability concerns... so what do you think this says about the state of the community? You can do your own combs if you want. 170.215.83.4 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A little more fuel for the fire?
Hi.

I discovered something while looking through some AfD discussions:

Votes for deletion/Dodd middle school

Yes, the year is 2004, not 2006, and yes that was the world "notable" there in bold text. Somebody else in there said "delete, not evidence of notability". What do you think? Obviously this thing has been used in deletion for quite a while now (over 2 and a half years), so what do you think should be done? Just a little more fuel to toss on this roaring bonfire :) 70.101.147.74 05:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point being...? Of course "notability" existed and was used as a concept here before the earliest(?) notability essays/proposals were being drafted.  People don't write essays and proposals, generally, about concepts that no one's thought of in the Wikipedia context before.  We don't see any proposals like Assassination of vandals and their families or Only registered voters deserve articles, do we?  :-/  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was more flippant-looking than I intended it; sorry. Disrespect wasn't intended.  Substantively: I again (3rd time? I may well just go set it up myself...) propose a WikiProject: Notability consensus to deal with the issue. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, how would such a project be different from this talk page? Second, as stated above, guidelines are generally made by writing down existing practice, not by some legislative-sounding committee. ( Radiant ) 12:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think WikiProjects sound "legislative" at all; to me they are inspirational of teamwork and consensus-building. There isn't any policy reason that what needs to be done couldn't be done here, but the historical record is not encouraging.  The main problem is that this page is about this Essay/Proposal/Guideline, not about the issue/need in general. A WProj on the topic would almost necessarily be more balanced/open.  And the main page of it, if structured the way wikiprojects typically are, wouldn't be the text of such a document, but rather an introduction to the topic and a collection of resources.  Right now, there really isn't a way to get handle on the notability debate other than by coming here to this talk page and reading for a long time, then going to WP:NNOT and reading there for a long time, and then digging around in history and (if lucky) discovering the Fame and Importance talk page, the Importance talk page, etc., etc., etc.  It's a very exclusionary situation because few people who actually care a whole lot about the issue will bother to do that much digging around, not to mention those more new to the topic.  Anyway, I'm not insisting that this be handled by a new WikiProject, I'm just saying it might be a good idea. If I were insistent about it I'd already have put up a proposal in WikiProject Council/Proposals. I feel fairly strongly that this should happen, but I have other things to do on WP, and off of WP. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point? The point is that notability has existed in some form and a guideline on it overall should still exist, even if the present WP:N/WP:NN guideline isn't it. 70.101.147.74 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've said several times here, we already have a process for this, in Policy; no new Guideline needed. As Notability Guideline s that cover particular topics (bands &amp; musicians, for example; the one on books is well on the way to getting there; meanwhile cue sports is a new one I'm the principal editor of so far, that is just at the beginning of the process) or that cover types of articles (e.g., biographies), rise to such a level of consensus that they are uncontroversially generally accepted, then they are imported directly into Policy, at WP:DP.  There's no adequately explained rationale for going around that process and creating a murky WP-wide version of notability that isn't flexible enough to handle different topics'/article types' notability needs (I can go into some examples of how those differ from topic to topic if necessary, but I think it's pretty self-evident just by comparing a few of the extant topical guidelines included in WP:DEL as actionable). Thus I oppose creating a WP-wide version of notability, and instead support the WP-traditional process of formation of specific and scope-limited notability guildelines and their progressive importation into the WP:DEL Policy. I think this conflict of notability models is quite large, and would probably be the main initial item of discussion in the aforementioned "WikiProject Notability consensus" should such a thing come to exist.  NB: I also think such a WProj could help craft a guideline about creating Notability Guideline s  of that sort; I think this is needed, and that WP:NN emphatically isn't it (WP:NN by contrast attempts to trump them all, and to controvert Policy &#91;namely WP:DEL and especially WP:V&#93; to boot.  It is in conflict with everything else on the topic &mdash; the main reason I think that a WProj would be more useful than continuing to try to resolve the WP-wide issue in here.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How does WP:NN try to trump all the other guidelines, and how is it so restrictive compared to them? Is it because it has only a single criterion for notability, and some things that might be difficult to meet that criterion could still be notable? (look at WP:MUSIC for example. It has the WP:NN "primary criterion" in there, but there are also other criteria that a piece of music could still be deemed notable if it satisified, while not satisfying the "primary criterion" in WP:NN and thus under that guideline (WP:MUSIC, not WP:NN) alone it would still be notable?) I just don't quite understand this. 70.101.147.74 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would set a Wikipedia-wide standard for what constitutes "notable". I didn't say it was more restrictive than all of them (though it would be in some cases, and less restrictive in others), only that it sets a blanket standard that would be imposed on everything instead of there being a different consensus on different topics/types of articles because they have different notability needs.  For example, it has been suggested that every mountain on earth is notable, simply by virtue of the fact that it exists.  In this case the requirement for multiple sources seems unwarranted, as a single "reputable, non-trivial" atlas can be used to demonstrate that the mountain exists.  In sports, however, having 50 sources demonstrate that a player exists may not mean that the player is notable, only that they exist, since it does not speak to any accomplishments, importance, notoriety, etc., etc.  It's not that the name or even particularly the wording of WP:NN is wrong; the problem is that would be inflexible. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that anybody wants this page to set "a blanket standard that would be imposed on everything instead of there being a different consensus on different topics/types of articles because they have different notability needs". In fact, I'm for the notability guideline, but against that.  That's not how I see the guideline working at all.  I suspect you're savaging an unintentional straw man there.  You say "the problem is that would be inflexible" - why would it necessarily?  What if it were explicity made flexible, and explicitly only applicable in cases where there isn't already a subject-specific guideline?  I've always thought of the general notability criterion as being trumped by more specific ones; who ever suggested that it be otherwise? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was thinking too -- the general criterion is here for when the subject we are dealing with is not covered by any other guidelines. Ultimately, if and when every concievable flavor of topic has a guideline it would no longer be necessary. 70.101.147.74 07:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. However, hwo does this "setting a WP-wide standard" relate to the subjectivity thing? 170.215.83.4 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say they're basically unrelated. The question of whether this guideline is intended to supersede subject-specific guidelines is entirely separate from the question of whether this guideline is to be understood objectively or subjectively.  I'd also say that the "blanket guideline" concern is a red herring; as far as I can see, nobody's even suggesting that the general guideline should trump particular ones, and common sense dictates that particular notability criteria trump general ones. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it should necessarily supersede the additional guidelines where they exist, rather it provides a criterion to use when no others are available. I also don't see why the criterion given is "totally and completely subjective" as one guy I debated with claimed. 170.215.83.4 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, but I used to be more subjective - "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact" - which is a pretty terrible definition, relying on subjective value judgements about what "should be" well known. There's also the problem of people applying subjective notability criteria in deletion discussions, and claiming this guideline as justification.  As more and more people find out that we've finally hammered down a useful definition of notability, that should lessen, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. I think part of the problem might be the "load" of the term "notability" (ask any old average Joe on the street what they think the term "notability" means and they'll probably say "fame" or "publicity" or something like that. I'd bet $1000 they'd say something like that.), and the hangover from only recently having given a WP-related definition of the term, as seen on this page (WP:N). The use in WP:AFD discussions with various criteria that aren't stated anywhere -- like "Oh, only 70 Ghits, NN, D" even though there's no 70-Google-hit limit anywhere, NUKE, N, CSD, V, ANYWHERE!!! I think ultimately people need to drop their own subjective definitions and use only ones that are explicitly stated. No matter how solid and clear the definition is here, if people don't apply it, it is worthless. 170.215.83.4 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing we can do for this guideline now is to promote our new, clear, objective definition of notability. The more people repeat that "notability means having non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources," the more it'll stick.  We tend to like clear definitions; we just have to hear about them before we can apply them. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * However, why must they be "important" or "famous" or whatever, if those 50 sources are detailed enough in their reporting (ie. not just 50 passing mentions of the person's name but real actual info) to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article then they should be included on WP, notice that the "multiple indepedent sources" criterion is one of the "proves notability" ones on WP:BIO and not just WP:N (in fact it's on every approved WP notability guideline!)? Or did you already mean that? 170.215.83.4 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As per Bacchus, I don't see anyone arguing for this page to become a blanket standard. Indeed, this page calls for the creation of more specific standards such as the already existing WP:BIO. ( Radiant ) 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! 170.215.83.4 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do "non-trivial" and "independent" mean?
We say, a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. The problem is, that begs the question of what non-trivial means. I'm thinking specifically of the thousands of giveaway trade publications whose articles consist mostly of thinly-disguised press releases. I don't think those count as non-trivial or independent. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The guideline says, "The independence qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works directly from the subject, its creators, its authors, or its inventors (as applicable)." I'm not familiar with the publications you're talking about, but it sounds like you could make a case against there being independent coverage, if that's all there is.  Maybe this has come up before, and some precedent has been established? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can speak from experience that many trade publications accept articles from companies unequivically. Due to limited budgets they will accept an article from a company and simply republish it. However, it's not always easy to judge which is which. It's not a black-and-white thing as much as a spectrum. But I think discounting certain trade publications could be a legitimate argument.Dgray xplane 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This also begs a question to which I have been giving a lot of thought but have seen limited mention on Wikipedia. What about blogs and other "online-only" media? Many freelance journalists publish articles and opinion on their blogs. Blogs run the gamut from highly respected to pure junk. A mention by a columnist in a major publication would probably be considered meaningful -- and that's one person's opinion. A blog could carry the same or more weight. How do we evaluate the credibility of a blog? Dgray xplane 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is more a matter for WP:RS, but in general we do not consider blogs and wikis to be credible. There are a few exceptions, e.g. blogs known to be written by an expert, or wikis with many contributors and significant stability. ( Radiant ) 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias
Let me know if people think this is a red herring, but what do people think of bringing cognitive bias into the conversation? There are many cognitive traps and it's easy to fall into them. It seems that cognitive bias can often cause arguments/discussions to spin out of control. I think if people felt like it was acceptable to cite these as well as official policy it could enhance the dialogue. Or do people think this would simply fan the flames? Does this sound naive? Curious to hear people's thoughts on this. Dgray xplane 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know more specifically what you're talking about. What kind of cognitive bias? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not talking about any specific kind. I am just suggesting that general knowledge of the subject could be helpful in unravelling some of the conversations and debates. Probably the most important one to consider is the bias blind spot, or, the bias that "I have no bias."Dgray xplane 05:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Example of what I mean: I have read talk about Wikipedians falling into "deletionist" and "inclusionist" categories. What I have actually observed is a system dynamic that might also be described as "argumentationists" vs. "co-creationists," which is more about a debate vs. conversational approach to decision-making. The reason I am proposing a conversation about bias is not as much a topic proposed for debate as it is a proposal for a meaningful conversation that might increase general "social literacy" and decrease the friction in many of these conversations. Realizing that Wikipedia talk:Notability is probably the wrong venue for this -- can anyone suggest a venue that might be a good place to initiate this kind of conversation?Dgray xplane 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I follow you. "debate" and "conversation" sounds like the same thing to me, and many Wikipedians do not pigeonhole people as foo-ionists and consider this dichotomy to be harmful. I think your best bet for such a conversation would be the village pump. ( Radiant ) 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Simplify, Simplify, simplify
Ok. I have been reading through this talk page for a while now. I have also found that the MULTITUDINOUS number of individulized notability guidelines in the works (schools, comedy, music, porn, etc. etc.) actually work against their purpose. The point of a guideline is to make it easier to discern potential problems and avoid or correct them. Most (though not all) of these subject-based notability guideline make it harder, not easier, to establish notability. The entire set should be reduced to the primary notability criteria, except in cases where specific exceptions are needed, like the WP:CORP exceptions... The reasons for this are as follows:
 * In order to appear in a wikipedia article, any fact must be referenced to a reliable source. "'Forbes magazine notes that XYZ corp is the top producer of widgets in the U.S.'" and not "'Johnny Doe on the widget fan forum says 'I dig XYZ widgets. They are the best''".  Any facts that are not cross referenced to a reliable source should be removed from an article.
 * Facts should be relevent and notable. Facts such as birthdates, addresses, products for sale, etc. are not in-and-of-themselves notable.  They can, and should, be part of an article that has something else to say on a subject.  But they should NOT be the entirety of the article.  An article could say"'XYZ corp is a producer of Widgets. Their corporate headquarters are located in Anywhere, USA..  It has been named by several publications, such as Forbes, Fortune, and WidgetWorld as the top producer of Widgets in the U.S.  Consumer reports consistantly names their Widgets as the top rated widget in testing.  It is estimated by WidgetWorld that one of XYZ widgets is found in 75% of U.S. housholds.'"
 * but not"XYZ corp is a producer of Widgets. Their corporate headquarters are located in Anywhere, USA."
 * If the second entry is ALL WE CAN write about XYZ corp, then XYZ corp can't have an article here. If there is never any hope of the article expanding beyond this, it should be deleted on notability ground.  Any facts that anyone adds to the second article would and should be deleted as unsourced, and thus the whole article should be deleted.  People get confused, and do not understand this.


 * The extraneous notability criteria (for example, if we had one that set an arbitrary limit on some numerical fact, like saying that all schools older than 50 years automatically become notable) it allows for the creation of articles we cannot populate with facts. If all we can say is "'XYZ school was founded in 1947. It has a capacity of 1000 students.  It is located in Anywhere USA.'"
 * nothing notable is said in this article. If no references can be found to add facts about this school, we are left with an eternally non-notable article.  If we create a guideline, however, that sets an arbitrary exception to the PNC, people could justifiably argue "keep" for this article in a deletion review, and they would have a policy to back up their claims.


 * The ultimate point I am trying to make is that we are trying to make a better encyclopedia here. If the only written policy people have to fall back on is "Multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources" then they can spend their time finding those references.  If none exist, we can confidently delete the article.  Eliminate the loopholes and endless debate by simplifying the articles.  Then we can reduce the debates to what they should be: A vetting process to determine non-triviality, relevence, and reliable sources, which SHOULD be decided on a case-by-case basis and not spelled out in detail here.  --Jayron 32  05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayron. When you wrote "If the former is ALL WE CAN write about XYZ corp, then XYZ corp can't have an article here" did you mean "the latter?" Your point makes more sense to me when read that way. Just want to determine whether what you wrote was a typo or what you actually intended to say.Dgray xplane 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Widely varying standards
Why is the Kanab ambersnail notable enough for inclusion, despite the fact that they only exist in about two square miles of land in a very small area of the US?

It seems to me that notability as a standard is not applied evenly. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article you site is very notable per the Wikipedia Definition of Notability, otherwise known as the Primary Notability Criteria: It is the subject of independant non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Notability is not about where the particular subject can be found, it is about where writing about the particular subject can be found. The distinction is not moot. Someone outside of wikipedia has cared enough about this snail to write and get the information about it published. Wikipedia's standards make no judgements on whether or not this subject SHOULD be notable, merely that it IS notable, and thus an article about it is accepted. Incedentally, if you were looking for an article to discount the Primary Notability Criteria, this is the among the worst you could have chosen. Keep looking though! --Jayron32 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are and will continue to be many reliable published sources on this subject. Also, there are and will continue to be neutral biologists, etc. interested in providing an accurate account of the topic, without fanatic or partisan bias. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And even if for some reason their weren't accurate published sources, a species is a species. New people can be created, as can new companies, new websites, new whatever. But genetic mutation aside, there's a finite amount of species, beyond human control. --  Zanimum 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability is just verifiability wrapped in enigma
Notability always seems to be boarding on verifiability, but has a little kick of vaugeness that makes arguments based on it hard to understand. "A subject is notable if [it?] has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources, or if it satisfies one of a number of additional [arbitrary-as-hell] subject-specific criteria." - sounds like notability + junk to me. From Notability (schools) - "articles about schools should show that there is ... sufficient coverage of that school to allow for the creation of a complete article." - sounds like verifiability.

Similar things appear on all the notability criteria pages. Given said information, does anyone else get the feeling that notability criteria is simply an interesting case of instruction creep? Fresheneesz 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that verifiable is not a sufficient criteria.  There are plenty of topics that are verifiable in an absolute sense but are not very notable and are therefore verifiable only with great difficulty.  If something is sufficiently notable, it almost certainly will be noted in multiple non-trivial sources, making it also verifiable.  IMO, the notability guidelines essentially attempt to establish minimum criteria for ease of verifiability but without requiring sources to be listed.  Another approach would be to require sources, but under this criteria I suspect 90% of the articles we have would need to be deleted.  On the other hand, maybe that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving the best posible reasoning for the demotion of this to a essay, deleting 90% of wikipedia goes against what Wikipedia is, therefor; this guideline goes against what Wikipedia is. And, it creates a dangerous "Only famous things can be in Wikipedia" policy, that, as I stated, goes against what Wikipedia is based on.
 * I'm not willing to take for granted that deleting 90% of Wikipedia goes against what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia might well be better off deleting 90% of the articles in the subject areas where notability disputes arise the most often, i.e. areas full of self-promotional and fancruft articles.  Also (re webcomic example), google hits mean close to squat.  If anything, the entry bar in subject areas like that should be higher, not lower, since most of those articles are basically spam. 67.117.130.181 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fancruft is not a reason for deletion, unless there was a rewording of the article in the last thirty seconds that I am unaware of, it says that in the page; Fancruft is also entirely in the eye of the beholder: one reader's cruft is another's priceless bit of information. And I have yet to read a webcomic page that can be remotely considered what Wikipedia defines as spam. (Justyn 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC))


 * And, I personaly believe that their SHOULD be Noteability criteria, but the bar is simply too high here; obscure things, indeed, things that are not obscure but have just never received review by "relyable sources", which this article actiual seems to blur with "famous sources".


 * Of course it sounds like verifiability -- that's one of the reasons for having notability. Notice at the beginning of WP:N where it says "Notability is a consequence of the official policies that Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc., and that Wikipedia content is verifiable (from independent sources)." Notability is, or at least it should be, an elaboration of the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT. The association with "fame" creates the infamous "NN!!! DELETE!!!" stuff so often seen on WP:AFD -- one might just say "NN, Delete" without even bothering to apply the notability criteria here, maybe not even those in the deletion policy, the decision being based on nothing but one's own internalized definition of notability (which is totally, purely, subjective. "I haven't heard of it", for example. Well, just because YOU didn't hear of it doesn't mean it's not notable. Somebody else might have heard of it. Or "It only gave 46 hits on Google! NN! D!" even though there is no "X-hit limit" anywhere.) 70.101.147.74 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to use a webcomic for example.

The articles of several of Bleedman's webcomics were deleted recently, because, "relyable sources" never reviewed them, dispite the fact that they receive roughly 14000 (, and 10000 hits in a search engine. And one of which won several awards from a group made up of those who make what is in question voting on who gets the award... sound familiar? That's right, that's the premise behind the Screen Actor's Guild Awards.

And many have been deleted for the sole reason that they do not meet the VERY high criteria for notability set on web material (which very little web material actualy meets). (Justyn 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC))


 * I don't really see much of a problem with those "very" high notability criteria for web material. There's so much web stuff out there -- Wikipedia is not a directory (which is the whole point of "notability" anyway) of everything on the net, that's what a search engine is for, and if one wants to see a website one just has to go to it. 70.101.147.74 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people have either a stance of "obliterate notability" or "keep noteability" why is no one saying "reform noteability". Wikipedia needs some form of notabiliy guidelines, but the fact is that the current guidelines put an impossible burden on obscure subjects (something that many webcomics fall under) because no outside "relyable sources" review them. Something that rarely happens with webcomics.

And I never said that we should turn Wikipedia into a web directory, that's one of the noteability supporter's scare tactics: pointing out what MIGHT happen if a fairy unpopular guideline is changed, Wikipedia needs notability, but the form it is currently in sets the bar too high for obscure subjects that don't get reveiwed for that very reason. and please don't interupt posts, it makes people's posts hard to follow. (Justyn 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Just before we're getting all straw manned again, nobody is seriously proposing that we delete 90% of Wikipedia, except possibly as a thought exercise. Personally I consider the idea way over the top, and I'm quite sure the community concurs. ( Radiant ) 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify (as the originator of the "delete 90%" quote, above), what I was saying is that IF the standard for inclusion were changed from "notability" to "sources must be identified" AND if we applied this new standard retroactively, THEN we might need to delete a large number of articles (since many articles are completely unsourced). I don't expect that anyone would seriously consider doing this.  The point is that we don't directly enforce WP:V, but instead rely on notability guidelines to give us a warm fuzzy that citable sources almost certainly exist for the topics that meet the notability guidelines.  -- Rick Block (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retroactively applying deletion to unsourced articles is being seriously considered, see Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. --Interiot 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference between notability and verifiability
This seems to be a bone of contention, which has come up repeatedly in these discussions. I think that many people aren't clearly distinguishing "notable" from "verifiable". I've been thinking about how to articulate the difference - as I see it - and possibly remove some misconceptions about how I and other supporters of the guideline are understanding it.

Let me spoil one objection up front: I grant that there is no need in this matter for further policy than WP:V and WP:NOT, and that notability, insofar as it's valid, is redundant with those. (Now watch, I'm going to defend it anyway. Good fun. :))

To begin, we note the difference between a subject and a statement. "The Moon" is a subject. "The Moon orbits Earth at an average distance of 384,399 kilometers," is a statement about the Moon. The statement is verifiable. The subject itself is not - that wouldn't make sense. It's not the Moon itself that we verifiy, but statements about the Moon. Fortunately, there are lots of verifiable statements about it, because the Moon is notable. Multiple, independent sources have seen fit to publish non-trivial works about it. Thus, it's entirely possible to put together a great Wikipedia article about the Moon.

The question we would like to answer is, "when is it appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about a given subject?" We will answer this question by applying two policies: Verifiability, and What Wikipedia is not. We will not have recourse to any kind of "notability guideline", and only at the end will I make a case for why the guideline's existence is justified. Here we go:

Thought experiment: We're creating an article about some subject. According to WP:V, we can only include verifiable facts about the subject, so we look for some. If we find lots of verifiable facts in multiple sources, then everybody wins, and we've got a featured article in no time. Now, suppose we don't find many facts out there from sources that we can use. Let's say we just find one properly verifiable fact. Does that warrant an article? WP:V doesn't answer this question - it merely says that the fact is allowed, and that the unverifiable ones aren't.

So, we consult our second policy, WP:NOT. Here we learn that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Suppose we look at our one-fact article and decide that it isn't going to grow beyond that one fact, which is pretty trivial. In this case, we have three choices: we can keep the article anyway, we can merge it to an appropriate target, or we can delete it. Many of us would consider the first choice to go against WP:NOT, so we look for a good merge target, and if we fail to find one, we take the article to AfD. end thought experiment

Ok, in the that experiment, I made no mention of any notability guideline. Turning back to reality, we note that such articles are often created at Wikipedia, often without even one verifiable fact, and they subsequently appear at AfD. The argument one would make for its deletion goes something like this:
 * It appears that this subject has not garnered enough mention in independent sources for us to collect an article's worth of verifiable facts. Hence, this article does not contain sufficient verifiable material to warrant an entire article.  Either it has no WP:V material, in which case we delete it, or it has very, very little.  If it has very, very little, and if we can't find any reasonable place to merge it, then we delete it.

That's a very thoroughly argued AfD recommendation! After repeating such arguments n times, where n is a sufficiently large number, one begins to wish for abbreviation. If the entire argument can be summarized in two words: "non-notable, delete", I can see how that would be tempting.

I suggest that this is the best use of this guideline. It's not any additional "rule" or criterion beyond what our policies tell us. It's essentially a summary of one argument that appeals to two different policies, and which comes up regularly in deletion discussions.

If people use the guideline in this way - taking care to know what they're doing and to explain themselves when asked - and if this page can be written in a way that reflects that "notability" is a shorthand for a common policy-based argument, and not something new... then I think we'll be in a pretty good place.

Alternatively, if we like the idea I'm presenting here, but not the name "notability" for it, then we might want to suggest different names.

Comments? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of stuff is verifiable but non-notable and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts.  Just because something is verifiable doesn't make it worthy of inclusion.  Notability means there's credible external evidence that the fact is significant, not just that it's true.  67.117.130.181 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If something has a nuetral point of view, is verifiable, is not original research, and does not try to make Wikipedia something that it is not; then it does not need to be signifigant or famous, it meets all criteria for inclusion. (Justyn 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
 * It's not clear to me what you're replying to, Justyn. Is there somewhere in this section where someone's come across as saying that "significance" or "fame" enter into our considerations at all? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I missunderstood the post, but after re-reading it a few times... I still have a little trouble fully understanding it. (Justyn 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Yeah, I probably used about four times too many words to try and make my point - sorry for my lack of clarity. Basically I'm suggesting that "notability" is (at least, as some of us understand it) really just a shorthand for an oft-repeated argument that combines WP:V and WP:NOT.  I agree that we can't use "fame" or some subjective idea of "significance" as a criterion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with WP:NOT, especially the statement about "collection of indescriminate information" is that indescriminate=trivial. What you have, in one line there, is part of the definition of notability that we have here.  WP:NOT is too large an umbrella; the same guideline has that Wikipedia is Not Paper, which seems to indicate a free-for-all.  "Wikipedia is not paper" is a statement of Wikipedia's infinite capacity.  With an infinite capacity, the threshold for indiscriminate or trivial becomes infinitely small.  This is unsatisfactory.  We also need the parts of the Primary Notability Criteria that defines non-trivial, and also includes the statement on reliable sources.  We need a SHORT, SIMPLE guideline that lets us easily delete articles that do not belong.  All of the wikipedia guidelines that prevent crappy, unreferenced articles are currently under attack.  guideline on reliable sources is also currently under attack, and if notability and reliable sources go as guidelines, we are left with no justification to delete any article, especially since without a guideline on reliable sources, someone need only to post some unverified idea on a forum or blog, it becomes verified by virtue of being written about outside of wikipedia, and thus becomes the basis for an article.  What is needed is a SHORT, SIMPLE policy on notability, not the 30 or so random guidelines that currently exist or are under proposal which only serve to confuse, not clarify.  We need something more than verifiability, and WP:NOT is too broad or confusing in places.  A simple, short guideline that says only the Primary Notability Criteria gives us that.  Where exceptions exist, they should be highly justfied and narrowly defined as we see in WP:CORP.  --Jayron 32  17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable = "worthy of notice". This is criteria must necessarily be based on normative judgements, which implies an obvious source of disagreement. Verifiability, however, can be deduced purely from positive claims.Kmarinas86 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you objecting to the idea of using WP:V and WP:NOT to decide that certain topics shouldn't have articles about them, or just to abbreviating that argument by using the word "notable"? Can you suggest a different word for how I'm suggesting "notability" should be understood in WP deletion discussions? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No I support it. I believe that requiring formality also requires adherence to WP:V and WP:NOT. I have a hunch that the common goal the concerned have is that of formal, digestable wikipedia articles.Kmarinas86 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is criteria must necessarily be based on normative judgements, which implies an obvious source of disagreement. &mdash; Wrong, and exactly why the project page has a section explaning that notability is not subjective. Notability is not decided by Wikipedia editors making subjective judgements.  Please read the project page. Uncle G 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader
Interesting points made. Do you think that notability can sometimes be used as a measure for whether "multiple, non-trivial" sources exist? That is to say, the majority of Wikipedia is unsourced and that's not going to change soon. An article is created, without sources, and nominated for deletion. And someone looks and it and thinks, "that article is about a very obscure topic, I don't believe sources could be found" or alternatively "that article has potential, I expect sources exist somewhere". But in the absence of finding said sources, they fall back on their feeling of whether such sources exist - essentially, the subject's notability.

And since the lack of sourcing means this happens a great deal, guidelines spring up, for judging whether such a situation is likely. All the guidelines have the criterion "has been featured in multiple, non-trivial published works" - that is the ideal and guarantees inclusion. The additional criteria are merely rules of thumb for working out if such a situation is likely. Because, after all, if such sources don't exist then it can never be verified and shouldn't be there at all.

I hope that made sense and feel very free to disagree - I'm new to this notability thing. Trebor 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Trebor, I mostly agree with your post, as I understand it. I suspect that what you describe - people basing their judgement of notability on whether they feel that sources probably do or don't exist - really happens to an extent.  It's not ideal, and we should be encouraging people to justify their AfD !votes with actual research, and asking for justifications when nothing concrete is provided.  The more we repeat that "notability means existence of enough WP:RS's to comply with WP:V and WP:NOT", the more people will believe it, and realize that the only way to answer that question is to look for those sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you'd hope so. I suppose part of the problem is in the word "notability" - most people hear it and think of some imaginary value on the scale of "importance" between (for instance) my local litter bin and the Pope - they don't think about sourcing or WP:NOT. Often the "importance" value of a subject corresponds to the number of sources and so the argument holds but occasionally you'll get exceptions (like a highly-visited website with no third-party sources). As you say, someone needs to do the research on the AfD before the rest can use "nn" as a reason to delete (and I'm as guilty as anyone in not doing that at times).


 * So I think you're right: when an argument based on notability is applied completely correctly, it is only as a consequence of WP:V and WP:NOT (bar the few exceptional cases in the subject-specific notability criteria). The problems stem from an incorrect application of the policy (and lack of effort to research sources for the article). Trebor 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problems stem from an incorrect application of the policy (and lack of effort to research sources for the article). &mdash; Yes, very much so.  The best AFD contributors are those that do the research.  Several editors regularly try to encourage novices (and others) at AFD to cite sources to satisfy the notability criteria.  Those are the arguments that, from experience, work. And with proper encouragement, the editors do cite sources, and their articles end up being kept.  Ironically, it is the editors who have been here for a long time, and who have become used to never being even asked to cite a source, that are the major problems.  Contrast the arguments of, an editor of "two and a half years", at Articles for deletion/Dimensional Insight with those of , a comparative novice, in the same discussion (who is the editor that actually cited things and that actually got other editors to change their minds), with the arguments of and citations supplied by , another novice, at Articles for deletion/Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow (2 nomination), and with the the arguments of and citations supplied by , another novice, at Articles for deletion/Butterley Tunnel.  The novices took to the idea straightaway once it was explained. AFD is currently in need of more editors encouraging people both to cite sources in order to demonstrate that notability criteria are satisfied, and to show that they have done the research when they are asserting that something is not notable.  Uncle G 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being semi-retired, I've stayed out of this debate, but I'm just going to pop in to say that GTBacchus has hit the nail on the head here. Absolutely. There need to be enough independently verifiable facts about a subject to write an article about it, and if that's not possible it should get merged or deleted. This does not eliminate notability, it simply 'outsources' it to the rest of the world, which is precisely where assessments of notability belong. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide what is and isn't a notable topic, it's up to the coverage the topic gets from the rest of the world.Z iggurat 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about renaming Notability to something like "Independence" or "Independently Referenced", or something similar? I'm new here, but the whole Notability issue seems to me to be a big headache. Perhaps just renaming it and using some of the ideas presented here in a new policy proposal for that new name might make at least some of that headache go away. Maybe. 139.130.248.74 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree up until WP:NOT is consulted. Wikipedia is not a directory is there to make sure we do not just include contact information for something. Wikipedia is not an indicriminate collection of information is there to make sure we do not include classes of articles which we can accommodate elsewhere, and last but most important of all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, although don't try to look for a clarication at the page of that name, its just a review of WP:NOT. Overall, the WP:NOT uses that you state above are not convincing enough with your vague thought experiment. Its funny that people never ever reference Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia in these discussions, preferring to extend "indiscriminate=random" to fit their purposes in a pragmatic sense. An encyclopedia is a collection of information. To say that articles must not be allowed in wikipedia unless they can be extended to a 32000 byte article, or are otherwise "unencyclopedic" does not make sense to me. There are plenty of pieces of human information which could be perfectly preserved in an encyclopedic manner, which could also fit with the proactive policies, as opposed to the negative "WP:NOT" policies.

A thought experiment where there is only one piece of information which can be found about a subject may be true, however, there are usually at least two pieces of information, and then people become picky, using your abbreviation in other ways. "nn, delete" is known to be not a reflection of "I went and tried to find sources but could find less than two which have facts I could use, and hence I am !voting here to say delete," rather it is used as "that topic does not look interesting, the editor obviously is new and hence does not know wikitext, and there are 5 tags on the page for cleanup, wikify, notability check, etc, hence, the articles subject must be non-notable, hence delete." It is too easy to be a !voter on XfD without researching the background of articles or in any way improving them during a discussion. Ans e ll 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ansell, I agree that "nn delete" is too often used to mean what you said. I definitely support keeping people honest by asking for explanations of such !votes.  I don't know where the line should be drawn - is one piece of information enough, or two, or what?  I guess that's where calls are made on a case-by-case basis.  I'm certainly not insisting that articles be expandable to 32kb in order to be kept, but I would insist that articles be expandable beyond one sentence.  Where to draw that line, somewhere between one sentence and 32kb, is a question that we answer with each AfD.  Are you thinking of any specific examples of things that we should cover, but about which we can only find one or two verifiable facts? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to do something about that, then. If you see editors using "nn, delete", please encourage those editors to provide proper rationales.  Feel free to employ User:Uncle G/On notability.  Such rationales have been widely frowned upon before now. If no editors say anything other than "nn" and "per nom", and don't even link to the notability criteria, novices won't know what arguments will change those editors' minds, and won't know to cite sources.  Consider Articles for deletion/XPLANE for example.  It was four days before someone even mentioned WP:CORP and citing sources.  Consider how different the discussion would have been if that had happened right from the start.  Uncle G 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's one thing that I'd like to bring up, which is undeniably not a part of how Wikipedia does things, but it I think it evidences that notability and verifiability are not the same thing. Basically, it boils down to this: Notability is a quality of a subject, which exists independently of Wikipedia, and indeed independently of any reliable sources to document it. Verifiability is a tenant of this website that constrains the articles you can write about notable subjects. The Moon, for example, was notable before Wikipedia was invented and even before writing was invented, before there were any reliable sources to cite. I think it's clear that notable subjects can and do fail the verifiability requirement, which is and should be distinct from the notability requirement. –  Anþony  talk  12:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Anþony, you're using those words in different ways than I am, which is cool, but might confuse some people if we're part of the same conversation. I'm understanding "verifiable" to be a quality of a single fact, not an article or a subject - you can't verify the Moon, just facts about it.  "The Moon is Earth's natural satellite" is a verifiable fact.  The moon being notable means nothing more (for our purposes) than "there exist plenty of verifiable facts about the Moon."  Those still aren't the same thing, but they're pretty closely related, hence they get mixed up a lot.  According to the way I'm using the words though, it's impossible for a "notable" subject to fail when it comes to verifiability, because "notable", for me, means "not failing when it comes to verifiability". -GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputes NOT resolved
I have restored the Disputedpolicy template to the article page, after it was removed (revert #1) by Centrx. Not one single point of dispute about this alleged Guideline (the status of which I remind everyone is still part of a Request for Arbitration) has been addressed to the satisfaction of those with concerns about WP:NN, much less resolved with consensus. Indeed, nothing about the debate has substantively changed in approximately three years. Improperly moving active debate topics, aside from being very anti-consensusbuilding, into talk archives does not change this fact in any way. From what I can tell from the new topics here, esp. recent additions by Ansell and by GTBacchus + Ziggurat, the "Guideline" is even more disputed as of this writing than it was a day or two ago when these highly questionable changes were made. I'm trying hard to assume good faith, but these actions are looking rather wikipolitical to me, in keeping with the pattern that established this essay/proposal as a guideline in the first place, in contravention of WP:OWN and WP:3RR. I have a meeting to get to, or this post would be wikified better; I will try to remember to change some of the statements above into evidentiary wikilinks tomorrow (or do so in a followup comment). Just because I've been taking a cooling-off breather for a couple of days doesn't mean I've forgotten about any of the points, questions or concerns raised by myself and others, and I doubt anyone else has either. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked for a short, simple explanation of what you or others specifically think is wrong with this as a guideline. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical that this is even possible. The faults are so numerous that "short, simple" is questionably plausible. The material recently and improperly stuffed into a talk archive page adequately covered those issues already, so asking for it again seems (note the stress on that word) impolitic and disingenuous.  That is, despite a strong intent to assume good faith I am being put in a position in which doing so is very, very difficult.  If you (and others; I won't go this far unless there's a clear demand/necessity) really, really, really want me to, then I will reiterate all of the concerns, questions and objections relating to WP:NN, in a new topic for each one.  And mercilessly revert any attempts to archive them or otherwise hide them away until they are actually resolved with true consensus.  Do you really want to go that route?  I don't.  I think it would be a lot more constructive to continue to recognize that this erstwhile "Guideline" is disputed, and to continue airing those disputes here and ironing them out, however long that may take.  The combative alternative will almost certainly take much longer and be a lot more contentious and "strifey" (there's probably a real word for that.  "Strifeful"?  "Constrifulatory"?) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict w/ Centrx) We can have all the discussions we need to have without throwing around accusations of "wikipolitics". Speaking for my own recent edit to the guideline, I added one sentence to the first paragraph indicating the relation of this guideline to the verifiability policy, strengthening your point, McCandlish, that notability must not extend beyond verifiability - a point that you'll note I've consistently supported despite your mistaken impression that I want notability to be some extra onus.
 * When adding that sentence, I indicated in my edit summary that I "hope it's helpful", and anybody disagreeing with that edit is perfectly free to revert it. Far from trying to railroad some policy change through, I'm trying my best to clarify that this guideline should not be interpreted as anything new or additional.  Tell me how the sentence isn't helpful, and I'll fix it myself.  Accuse me of politicking, and you've managed to put another obstacle between us and resolution.  Can you please just lay off the ad hominem shit, for good?  I have no problem assuming good faith on the part of everybody participating here, even you when you forget to be civil.  Don't talk about your consistently wrong impressions of my motivations, ok?  Talk about the content.
 * By the way, SMcCandlish, the fact that you and I seem to have different ideas about how policy and guidelines are written around here does not indicate bad faith on either of our parts; quite the contrary. It indicates that we both are operating in good faith within our somewhat incompatible understandings of what goes on at this website.  If you find assuming good faith difficult, you need to practice more. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus: I'm not sure why you appear to be so upset/offended. I have not suggested any bad faith on your part, and haven't (that I recall) disputed any edits of yours.  I do have serious concerns with regard to recent changes that appear to be intended to show that there is no dispute with regard to this article's status and meaning, especially given this article's history of being forcibly marked as a Guideline over many objections and reverts to the contrary, actions that are themselves a topic of serious contention here and in a RfAr.  The removal of the 'Disputedpolicy' template and the sudden archival of debates still in-progress as if they were old news is just a bit controversial...  I stand by my opinion that something wikipolitical seems to going on here, in light of this article's contentious history; I think that the evidence of this is bordering on blatantly incontrovertible.  But I'm not (that I know of) disputing any edit you in particular have made to the article, nor accusing you in particular of wikipolticking, and do appreciate the efforts you are making to improve the article text (despite my skepticism regarding whether it is salvageable at all, an issue I'm presently trying quite hard to remain neutral upon), meanwhile I am not being uncivil in any way I'm aware of; so I am a bit surprised by your apparent anger here.  My talk page is of course open if you feel I've transgressed in some way. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, looking back at your comments, I think I misundersood you. When you mentioned my name in connection with talk page edits, I got the impression you were talking about the guideline, where the only recent edit I made seemed uncontroversial enough.  I'm sorry for going off the handle like that.  Please disregard my little fit here, if you can. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: If someone wants to bite my ankles about having wikipoliticking concerns, then be my guest. Absent some amazingly good explanation for how this issue has suddenly become non-disputed in the hour or two I wasn't looking and day that I remained silent (largely out of respect to everyone else here, and slightly just to give myself a wikibreak), and a clear and rationally supportable justification for the removal of the 'Disputedpolicy' template, I stand by that question, without hesitation or doubt. This debate can henceforth go one of two ways.  Either it can continue as it has (with some topics resurrected from the consensus-breaking Talk Archive graveyard they were buried alive in), or we can start delineating disputes under their own headings one after another and get into vicious fights about them.  I prefer the former.  I thought we were actually making progress under the former model. &lt;sigh&gt; Either way is fine by me, but I'm not letting the overall issue rest just because someone stuffed the unresolved debates into an archive page and removed a dispute template after the dispute has been shoved into a closet.  Not happening on my watch. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind that the disputes continued even after the "disputed" tag got removed... 170.215.83.4 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, SMC, the last time you objected to this you cited five examples that simply weren't convincing (e.g. alleging that deletions were in violation of policy when in fact they were not, or citing a quote from several years ago as evidence). As an anon points out above, about two-thirds of our AFD nominations are about notability, so the allegation that deletion on grounds of lack of notability is controversial is obviously false. We base guidelines on what does happen, not on what some people think should happen. It seems clear that you dislike this guideline, but since it is based on actual practice and since consensus is not unanimity, somebody's dislike does not make the consensus disputed. ( Radiant ) 10:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Radiant, I was wondering when you'd chime in again. Nice to have you back! I admit that my "examples" tactic wasn't very fruitful; I'm not much of an "investigator".  The problem was that the genuine abuses I've seen weren't temporally convenient; I wasn't egaged in this dispute at the time. &lt;shrug&gt;  Oh well.  I've entirely given up on that tactic.  I think I very honestly and forthrightly annotated the examples with their investigative outcome - in partcular, one Afd&rarr;SD deletion I protested, I'd had moved to my userspace, examined closely, and reported here (well, in the archives at this point) as an apropos deletion.  No issue there.  I do find it notable (no pun intended) that zero of the other issues raised were addressed, which is the perpetual point.  Moving on, I absolutely stand by quoting from something several years ago, because the entire point of the quote was to show that nothing substantive about this debate has actually changed in several years; i.e., all of the objections and concerns remain unaddressed.  The fact that you mention it here again only serves to reinforce the very point.  And lastly you may be under the mistaken impression that I am an opponent of notability criteria generally; that's what your posts seems to imply. I'm actually the principal author/editor of one; my issues with WP:NN in particular are systemic, not topical.   The fact that "about two-thirds of our AFD nominations are about notability" supports my view, not yours; it is precisely the questionable "Guideline" status of this page that has lead to the current AfD "bloodsport" situation, which even today's non-forcibly-archived discussion is concerned about, in no uncertain terms.  The argument that WP:NN is valid because it represents practice is specious because said practices descend from WP:NN's masquerade as an actionable guideline in the first place.  I took a wikibreak for a few months, during which time WP:NN went from a Proposal to an alleged Guideline, and all freakin' hell has broken loose in AfD as a result; I came back to a totally different Wikipedia, of intolerance and guideline-lawyering. The Policy-cognizant notability guidelines at WP:DP don't suffer this fault (in my view, anyway).  If WP:NN were made compatible with that, and it's conflict with WP:V were resolved, I think the dispute would dissipate.  "Hint-hint" as they say.  A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The "bloodsport on AFD" as you call it (an appeal to emotion, by the way) predates this page by a long shot. The last significant change in AFD that I'm aware of took place in February, when PROD was introduced. Do you have evidence for the allegation "all freakin' hell has broken loose"?
 * I have already explained that the situation has changed in the past few years so we cannot rely on old quotes; the wiki evolves. To cite myself, "we have literally exploded in size, and this has all sorts of nasty side effects such as OTRS, a "shoot on sight" order regarding advertisements and libel, and an influx of both undesirable editors and undesirable articles which led to stricter ways of dealing with both. One might say that eventualism is losing grip because we have already crossed most bounds most eventualists figured we would eventually cross." I do not see how this guideline contradicts or otherwise conflicts with DP and/or V, but have no objection in principle to rewording. ( Radiant ) 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant, it pains me to see you guys talk past each other. Regarding the old quote, SMcCandlish brought that up to make one simple point "the present resembles the past, in one particular way."  An old quote is an entirely reasonable way to make that point - show us where someone in the past was saying the same things that are being said today.
 * As for how this guidline "contradicts" WP:V in SMcCandlish's way of thinking, I agree that it's counter-intuitive, at least to my understanding of the word "contradict". I would think a direct contradiction of WP:V would look like, "there is some material that we can include without verifying".  When SMcCandlish says "directly contradicts" in this context, he means that it goes beyond what's required by WP:V, that it extends that policy.  The only part of WP:V that's "contradicted" in the sense of the word that I understand, is an implication that a fact being verifiable is the only requirement for inclusion.  This guideline does indeed suggest a higher bar, in a way.  Facts must not only be verifiable, but must be included in an article on a topic that has enough verifiable facts about it to sustain an article.
 * I hope I'm correctly representing SMcCandlish's position. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with using a quote to make a point about the past - however, as I stated in my above comment, the present is significantly different from that past. Thanks for clearing up the 'contradiction' part of WP:V, but it is clear that being verifiable has never been the only criterion for inclusion. For instance, content must also be NPOV, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. ( Radiant ) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with notability
The problem with notability is that it focuses on entire subjects. For example, notability says that an article may be written about something that has received an award or been featured in non-trivial sources, or some such. However, this is the wrong way to go about things. *Information* must be sourced, not subjects. For someone to write about a famous person's birthday, children, favorite vacationing spots - there must be a reliable source to back it up. Just because something won an Emmy doesn't mean people can now write on whatever the hell the want to in its article - everything needs a source. Fresheneesz 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything must be sourced? There goes everything ficticious. (Justyn 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
 * There are quite a few Featured articles on fictitious topics; they have no lack of sources. The sources are usually reviews of the work, articles on the work's impact, and interviews with the author(s). Let's see: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - 35 sources. The Lord of the Rings - 50 sources. Heck, Make Way for Ducklings has 20 sources. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I ment almost everything, I forgot to type that, I'm only human after all. But, some information that is relevent, and blatantly obvious by simply looking at (such as needing a source to tell that Roronoa Zoro has green hair, when you can tell that just by looking at the picture of him on the page) needing to be sourced? Not every little bit of information needs to be sourced (Zoro having green hair, yes, the fact that he smells like steel, that should be sourced; and is) but anything that that is not blatantly obvious should, indeed be sourced. (Justyn 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC))
 * I'd consider a picture to be a source, why not? Fresheneesz 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's true, notability applies to entire topics, whereas verifiability applies to individual facts. It remains true that everything must be sourced, but notability is a way of asking the question, "is there enough source material to get an article on this topic that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOT?" Once it's decided that sufficient sources exist, all material in the article needs to be referred back to those. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:V and WP:NOT are the standard for whether there is there enough source material to get an article on this topic that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOT. Notability is simply a way of saying "I'm not interested in this". Trollderella 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Trollderella, I realize that many people mean that when they say "notable", but what I'm suggesting is interpreting the word differently, and getting away from the subjective mindset you describe. I completely agree with you that WP:V and WP:NOT are the standard; I'm suggesting that the word "notable" be used in a way that means nothing more than that.  I'm suggesting that the only Wikipedia-appropriate definition of "notable" is that "notable" means "having enough sources to sustain a sourced encyclopedia article", and nothing more.  Would you still object to "notability", if that meaning were applied? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that's what you mean, you should say 'It's not verifiable, and doesn't meet X requirement on WP:NOT'. Using an ambiguous and often abused term that you are trying to use as a synonym for legitimate objections is confusing and, misleading and unnecessary. Trollderella 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trollderella. Topics should not need a minimum level of information to be allowed on wikipedia. If a topic is small, it can be merged into a related topic - unless there is none, then it can be left as a stub. Fresheneesz 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fresheneesz, we're partly in agreement. In the case where there's an appropriate merge target, deletion is clearly the wrong choice.  Merging preserves the verifiable information, in an appropriate context.  When there's no merge target, I'm still in favor of keeping the stub, as you say, except in cases where all the verifiable information we have is still insufficient to get us more than a directory listing.  Then, we delete per WP:NOT.  That's all I mean  by the word "non-notable" - a subject is only non-notable if we can't float an article that satisfies WP:V and WP:NOT.  An article on a non-notable (by this definition) subject should only be deleted if there is no appropriate merge target.  Are we really disagreeing, or is our apparent difference simply one of vocabulary? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we're not really disagreeing. Tho I think that notability is work with such twisted usage as to do more harm than good. I would guess you don't quite agree with that. Fresheneesz 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe it has done a lot of harm, but that's why I'm so keen to fix its definition to a good one, which some people have been meaning all along, but not been clear enough about. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If a topic is small, it can be merged into a related topic &mdash; I suggest reading the project page. It says this very thing.  Uncle G 07:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. I would. Trollderella 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's beyond fixing. Delete it. It's not notable. Trollderella 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think this, but I and others are not at all convinced that it's beyond fixing. Why not give us a chance?  Consider: you can't get consensus to delete this guideline, but it should be much easier to get consensus to turn it into something more useful and consistent with policy, and less of a "monster", as you termed it below. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The real problem is that you can't really fix the issue of its multiple definitions and vauge usages. I think the first step toward rectifying this guideline would be to find a more specific word for it, so that people don't get confused or misuse it. Any ideas? Fresheneesz 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say "you can't fix the issue of its multiple definitions and vauge usages". I think it's possible to do so.  That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a rename.  The concept I'm trying to describe with the word "notability" is basically.... the existence of sufficient good sources, without which we need to merge or delete.  What does one call that?  "Sourceability"?  Is that a word? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Werdnabot archival
Exception to normal Wednabot usage is valid for active project talk pages. See User talk:Werdna I asked for clarification on this, and Werdnabot IS being used on non-user talk pages if actity merits it. It would appear that activity merits it. Besides, Werdnabot is far more equitable, since it doesn't archive active discussions before people have had a chance to comment on them. --Jayron 32 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. It archives solely based on time, regardless of whether there have been any responses. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Time of the first post, or of the most recent? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The most recent, so it won't archive discussions that are active if there are people interested in that topic on the talk page within the given time period (but 7 days is too short for the current level of activity and would have been much too long for the previous level of activity), but if people have not "had a chance to comment on" a post, then we are looking at the first post anyway. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as is the case with this page, discussions on regular talk pages often are in spurts, with sudden heavy activity that dies. The bot archives sections unnecessarily regardless of their activity or relevance to active discussion; this is fine when there is high activity because there simply should not be 300KB of comments on a single page for loading every time, but there is no such problem if a talk page is not active and the bot will archive active discussions or discussions that are more relevant to active discussions. I archived the talk page exactly because of the ridiculously huge page that was here; if a talk page is 300KB that needs doing regardless of whether the comments are older or younger than 7 days. New comments can easily be added at the bottom of the talk page, with reference to the old ones; the old comments don't disappear. If the same level of activity continues, the talk page will not need archiving in 7 days. The bot is simply unnecessary yet likely to cause the exact sort of problem that you are adding it to prevent. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but if we don't Werdnabot archival, how do we assure that active discussions aren't sumarily moved to the archives even if they get large? We have a two-fold problem:

I want to see what others who are active here have to say on this. I am not sold that Werdnabot is the only way to equitably handle this, but I don't want to see any discussion effectively "deleted" before it reaches a reasonable conclusion. Any other suggestions out there? We can also set the Werdnabot archive timeframe to anything we want. 30 days is possible too... I only picked 7 since it seems like that seemed to catch most active discussions. --Jayron 32 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Dead discussions clog the talk page, and must be archived to prevent the page from being too large.
 * 2) Contentious and highly active discussions can grow to an unmanagable size as well, but if so, they should not be archived if not resolved. If we agree to manually archive these discussions with the dead ones, we should only do so for the oldest comments, and not for the entire discussion.  Archiving a discussion effectively ends it prematurely, and it is unsatisfactory to see a discussion disappear entirely, especially if good points continue to be made.
 * The simple and most common solution is to keep comments short and to the point. If there is a new issue that stems out of previous discussions, bring it up in a new section. It is not difficult to link to previous discussions, or to summarize a point and orient it to the specific topic at hand. There is no need to have a thousand-word essay followed by a thousand-word essay followed by another and another. The last archive is more than 31000 words long, and that doesn't include what remains on this page. That is about a third of the length of a novel. I don't know how much was accomplished in all those words, and it was probably just one person who made up the bulk of it, but I suspect as much could have been accomplished in half the space (and effort); probably, more could have been accomplished by focusing. Simply, there is no reason to introduce fifty issues at once; there is no reason why there should be continuing discussion in the 1st kilobyte as well as continuing active discussion in the 300th kilobyte. I do notice that of all those thousands of words expended on the talk page, only a few dozen were spared for the actual main page, and even some obvious, egregious spelling errors on it were never corrected. If there is really such a lack of any compromise or productive, practical outcomes to set down on the page, it is rather pointless; no one is going to be convinced of the extremes of either "side". As for myself, I am just going to ignore any long rants or anything unrelated to the purpose of this talk page. Bloated essays feed upon loose responses, and multiply. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice also that at the current rate of growth it would take about 25 days to reach the same talk page length as happened in just 6 days over the course of last week. The bot is not necessary. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "&#91;...&#93;if actity merits it. It would appear that activity merits it."  Well that's a very, very convenient viewpoint to espouse when shunting currently-active and unresolved debates onto an archive page so that with the result that discussion and resolution on that topic just stops.  Whatever the rationale, the effect in this particular forum has been markedly negative from a consensus-forming point of view. So for once I'm in concert with Centrx: "The bot is not necessary." :-)  PS: I find it tragically amusing to (from what I can gather from the above) be characterized as being one of "the extremes" when I actually come from a remarkably centrist position on the issue.  Life is funny that way, I guess... &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you misread events. I have been actively unarchiving the discussions because I felt the archiving was being mishandled.  I was looking for a more equitible way to reduce the size of the page, without effectively ending discussions before they reached their conclusion.  When you quote me, be careful to attribute all of my positions to me.  It was other users that moved discussions to talk pages that caused active discussions to stop before resolutions.  It was my actions that returned the discussions here to allow them to remain open.  I support your position 100%, and am against archiving active discussions.  My proposal to bring in Werdnabot was only to allow archival of dead discussions; one cannot accuse Werdnabot of using archival as a way of intentionally killing a discussion they disagreed with the way that one could accuse a human editor of doing the same.  not that I am doing that in any way.  It was intended as a preemptive strike against such feelings, which could have occurred if human-editor-archival was allowed to continue.  --Jayron 32  04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The archiving was a result of my coming back upon a 350KB page, on a slow computer, which only days before had been a normal talk page. If there are active issues in those 31,000 words, anyone is perfectly capable of bringing them up, but that can be done with briefer comments, and dealing with fewer issues at one time. I was not referring to you or anyone specifically with regard to extremes. Simply, if this much discussion has been going on and there has been no practical outcome, someone or everyone is being obstinate and unreasonable. It may very well be you, but I didn't read any of the previous, long exhausting discussion so I only know that you dispute the guideline in some way, having put the disputed tag back. Issues with the page can be brought up, concisely. —Centrx→talk &bull; 10:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)