Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 40

Understanding the guidelines
Thank you Father Goose, I think I understand what I need to do in order to confirm the information I have posted.

I will continue to do research and provide links to 3rd party confirmation such as the Burning Man web site, Westword magazine and new sources as the become available.

Give me two weeks or less and I will have it for you.

Thanks Bhaktirasa (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Bob

WP:BIO
So I'm looking at WP:BIO's ==Additional criteria==, which begins with a reminder that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here's what I'm finding:

In short, it says "secondary sources, or events so widely and routinely covered that we can presume that secondary sources exist, even if you haven't bothered to find them yet." The very few points that don't line up like that are the very points that are most heavily contested, and the most likely to result in one of those "not guaranteed" deletions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Professional athletes are a good example of this: significant coverage from reliable secondary sources are required, not just to demonstrate their notability, but also to establish that they don't fail WP:NTEMP or WP:BIO1E. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I am not sure where Masem gets his ideas, but I can cite established policy to support mine. If WP:V says topics which are not the subject of reliable, third-party sources should not have their own article, then his claims that SNG's do not require them is disingenuous. If WP:OR says that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and his claims to the contrary are also disingenuous. To be honest, I don't know what Masem is trying to prove or disprove here, I only know that what he is saying is misleading. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) If a topic doesn't appear to meet the general guideline, then its not notable. And if its not notable, it is not going to meet any of Wikipedia's content policies either - which is why reliable secondary sourcing is key. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of your points are presuming that verification has to come from secondary sources, but instead these only need to come of reliable sources (which may be secondary sources, but do not need to be). For example, your critique of "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", implies that a secondary source is needed to show that point. This is incorrect: we can use any reliable sources that ultimately defer to a secondary source (or more) that asserts this points, but that otherwise may not explore the point further. We would expect that secondary source to ultimately be added to the article at a future date, but not at the meantime. But this is a case where there is clear evidence of the presumption of notability by a secondary source knowning that source exists.  Take "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.", where again you say we need secondary sources; this is not true as most news reports that assert the professional athlete's association will be primary sources (written factually, not in an analytical or critical manner) which satisfy this. There are secondary sources that may also affirm this too, but they are not required to be secondary.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verification must come from reliable secondary sources, not tertiary or primary sources as Masem is implying. Tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia itself, are summaries of secondary sources, so a summary of a summary source is not verifiable evidence. I think it is entirely disingenious to say that "any reliable sources that ultimately defer to a secondary source" can be used as evidence of notability because verifiability is not the same as inference. Its one thing to say that significant coverage from reliable secondary sources do exist if you back this assertion with citations, but using of subjective opinion that such sources might exists is a matter of speculation.
 * That's wrong. If we are just asking for verification, it can be from a reliable third-source, as per WP:V. Secondary sources - the ones that are more than just reporting facts but go into analysis or evaluation of a topic - are great but not required to satisfy the SNG criteria that are alternate to the GNG. If the SNGs were mean to only use secondary sources to show the points above, then there would be no reason for the SNGs additional criteria because they already meant the GNG. The SNGs exist to provide presumptions of notability where verification exists but other present sources would otherwise fail the GNG. This is the reason the SNGs exist. --M ASEM  (t) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it wrong? It is precisely the commentary, criticism and analysis about a school or shopping mall that confer notability in the form of significant coverage. Everything else (location, opening times, the name of the janitor etc.) that reproduce the primary source such as a prospectus do not confer notability because they are trivial details that are reported as a matter of routine. Notability can only be presumed if there is significant coverage cited from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the primary source. A presumption of notability can only be made if such sources are cited in the article; if not, the test for verifiable evidence has not been passed. Infering that there might be evidence somewhere or sometime is not the same and citing the evidence. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you're mixing the conversation again. In specifically addressing the question about SNGs in general in like of what WhatAmIDoing listed out above, it is shown that the criteria of SNGs that require a certain fact about the topic in question to be meet can be meet by providing only reliable, third-party sources. They meet this without having secondary sources because past consensus has agreed that if the SNG criteria is met, it is is very likely that there are or will be secondary sources to expand the article in the future. You claimed that secondary sources are required here; they are not, just verification of meeting the consensus-determined criteria through third party reliable sources (though as always, having secondary sources to pass the GNG too is always allowed).
 * Now, on the completely separate issue of schools and local interests, I am unaware of any SNGs that support these. That's not that someone may come along and create one, but right now I presume there isn't any SNG, which means, as I've stated above, that yes, any article on a school or local entity needs to meet the GNG.
 * You need to drop the pretense that notability is objective. What we include in WP is subjective and based on consensus. As I've kept saying, the GNG is a great tool for most topics (particularly contemporary ones) to decide if it's worthwhile or not to include, but it is not a perfect measure, particularly given that what we include is subjective based on community consensus. If tomorrow the whole of WP wakes up and decides we should include every listed business as their own article, then we do so even if it doesn't pass the GNG.  Similarly, if they all wake up and decide that no athletes should be included unless they are notable outside of sports, then we'll remove them all even if they do pass the GNG. The GNG is a good first pass tool, but not absolute; the SNGs serve to cover areas that the GNG does not quite fit well enough to meet community desires for what should be included. --M ASEM  (t) 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although notability is not objective, it is not as subjective as Masem thinks; notability must be supported by evidence, it can't be infered, nor is it supported by opinion in the absence of evidence. None of the SNG's say that notability can be established "without having secondary sources". So in fairness, it must be Masem who is mixing the conversation up.
 * Where have I said that SNGs do not require sources? To provide any criteria in an SNG, it requires at minimum a verifiable, reliable third-party source. Now, that is not the same as a secondary source; understanding the differences in the "first/third-party" measure and "primary/secondary/tertiary" measure with regards to sourcing is very important.  The verifiable, reliable third-party source can be either primary, secondary, or tertiary.  There is no requirement for an article to have secondary sources (and yes, I know what OR says, but again, the critical word there is "should", not "must").
 * Remember, the purpose of an SNG is to establish that a topic is likely notable due to merits previously determined by consensus that lead to expandable WP articles, in light of the lack of secondary sources. A SNG is meant to be used to support the initial creation of an article, but it is not meant to keep that article around indefinitely. It is to allow that article to be put into mainspace to allow any other editors to come along and help improve it through the addition of other sources (including secondary) to make a better article.  An article that is cleared through passage of an SNG but never can develop further, particularly well-past an event that allowed it to meet the SNG, likely means that we should eventually get rid of it or merge it or something.  SNGs are not a permanent "get out of notability jail" card, but instead only a temporarily allowance to include topics that otherwise would immediately be deleted by those that have notability trigger fingers and see no secondary sources.  And just to be clear, even if one can provide a reliable source for meeting an SNG criteria, that still can be challenged if it is a weak source or a weak attempt at passing the criteria  (eg a local interest award confers no long-term notability).
 * My whole point here is that secondary sources required for notability and to avoid original research are not the same as third-party reliable sources that can be used to establish facts needed for verification, as the above conversation seems to imply otherwise. While we prefer secondary sources, we can still build factually correct articles from non-secondary, reliable sources, though we still need a means to assert the topic to be notable for these, and that's why we have the SNGs to help to presume the future presence of secondary sources based on current merits. --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems a bit off-topic, but I believe Masem is correct here. Specific notability guidelines call out situations in which we would most likely keep an article that doesn't appear to meet the general guideline because we presume that secondary sources either exist or will shortly exist that cover the topic.  Powers T 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is just the point: none of the SNG actually say that. Nor do they say that we should keep articles in the absence of significant coverage. Nor do they say that a topic is notable if there aren't reliable sources either.
 * Our policies mean what they say. And none of them say anything about presuming "that secondary sources either exist or will shortly exist".  That is pure poppycock. Dlabtot (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly how all the SNGs are structures: they offer the presumption of notability due to meeting the GNG or by showing verification of meeting one of a select number of criteria that have been predetermined to be a sign that there are or likely will be secondary sources in the future. This is a common sense allowance for topics that we know we want to include in WP but are hampered by the lack of current sources or current effort to gather the sources for the topic in question. --M ASEM  (t) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean to imply I was making a direct quotation. But it's the clear intent of the specific notability guidelines that they provide rules of thumb regarding which topics are likely to be notable given certain verifiable conditions.  Powers T 18:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "We know we want to include" = subjective opinion. The SNG's were never intended to be used to plug holes where significant coverage from reliable secondary sources are lacking. Inferences that sources might exist is just another way of saying WP:IKNOWIT without having to provide evidence of notability in accordance with WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they are meant to do just that. --M ASEM (t) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you posted a link to an RfC that does not support your position. Your assertions are wrong, no matter how many times you repeat them. Dlabtot (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That RFC shows the agreement on the long-standing uses of the SNGs to allow other sources that offer specific proof of meeting listed criteria as indications of notability, though these sources may not be secondary sources themselves, but do need to be reliable. That's exactly the purpose of the SNGs which has been shown to be true through community consensus in that RFC. --M ASEM (t) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not say or imply anything about a presumption that sources exist or will soon exist. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True, it doesn't say that, which implies that it is possible to remain indefinitely on WP sourced to exactly one non-secondary reliable source that verifies that the topic meets the criteria of an SNG. (if you read the RFC, you'll see that this is part of the conditions for support) In practice, that's not true - we ultimately want more indepth articles, and such a single-source article that persists indefinitely will become more likely of a deletion target as it persists. We eventually want encyclopedia articles on notable topics, and that can only be doen through expansion from secondary sources, but in the short term we don't require this as long as we have shown evidence that the topic is one that will likely expand with appropriate secondary sourcing. --M ASEM  (t) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It means what it says. It doesn't 'imply' anything. Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales: It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between sourcing for WP:V (as Jimbo's concern is above) and providing secondary sources for notability. --M ASEM  (t) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Additional discussion regarding WP:AUTHOR (too strict?) here. Pcap ping  15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not temporary
Articles sometimes get deleted later in their life, after they have been around some time. At present the guideline states "notability is not temporary", and hence we get questions "My article has been here X months, why is it being deleted". So I have added a short paragraph to explain this.

Basically the common thread is that while notability is not temporary, the community at any time may decide to review whether the topic was in fact notable in the first place. I've given some common examples as context.

FT2 (Talk 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple Question
It may have been asked before, but does the notability guideline take place in an article with no references at all? Minima c  ( talk ) 06:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no references at all, there's no way to judge notability so unless it is blatantly obvious that the topic is notable, it will likely be sent to AFD. --M ASEM (t) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For instance I've been wanting to get some nice references for Floor. The article is an introduction to the subject and most of the articles it links to have some decent references but it isn't properly referenced itself. An AfD on it would very likely be speedily thrown out though. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's important is whether or not the sources exist, somewhere in the world, and not whether the sources are already WP:CITEd in the article. Dmcq, in looking for sources for expanding floor, you might look up the WHO's definition of absolute poverty:  dirt floors are considered inappropriate deprivation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They're a bunch of eejits sitting in a tower. See Earthen floor. Not that I'm against the WHO or anything but it just doesn't sound like they actually thought about this. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is a case where reliable sources like the WHO say something and it is verifiable even if it does not correspond with reality. I view the modern concrete floor with tiles as a health hazard for the old because so many break their hips when they fall on them and then die within the year. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Defunct magazine or journal
It seems to me that historical reasons would dictate that if an article is done on a magazine or journal, "non-notable and defunct" would have a burden on the side wishing removal. Someone may want to know if there is a source for an obscure type of question and ask Wikipedia for information on a magazine that has not been in print for a while. Finding that Wikipedia doesn't know the journal existed would be disconcerting to such a person and probably would lead to the answer having less of a chance of ever being found. What is the proper policy? I have a weak article on Othello Quarterly in mind--just a stub sentence--but that looks like it's better than nothing to me. How should I save the article beyond expanding it with some detail from inside the magazine?Julzes (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't care if the magazine still exists. We care whether reliable sources have (ever) written about the magazine's existence.  Do you have a couple of good sources?  If so, then the article probably meets WP:GNG.  If not, I'd expect it to be deleted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, sources is then absolutely the issue? And "defunct" was the tagger's error? So, equal position on extant and extinct magazines? That seems like an improvement. This is going to be difficult. I don't like the logic here in dealing with source material itself. Can you see my perspective? I suppose I should go to the library and ask a librarian on this one. There has to be a book cataloguing all periodicals. Would that be satisfactory?Julzes (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. Games Magazine will fill the bill, I'm reasonably sure. I'll have to find specific articles, no doubt.Julzes (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything at WP:N is about the sources. No sources = no article.
 * A book catalogue probably won't work: it's a tertiary source, which means that it might include unimportant things for the sake of completeness.
 * Media articles about the magazine (publisher, founding, closing, etc) would generally be accepted. I suggest that you click here to read the 'general notability guideline'.  The GNG is our best effort at describing the usual rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GNG applied to local interests
How do others feel about the GNG being applied to local interests?

This refers to people, businesses, buildings, infrastructure, and anything else that is found in one place, is only of interest to those in one place, is sourced only by media outlets in its own locality, but does have coverage by two or more separate sources.

It is not uncommon for a local interest to have multiple sources, as many places, especially urban areas, have several TV and radio stations, one or more newspapers and magazines, and there are even some published books written and marketed only to locals.

Some types of local interests seem to have plenty of unchallenged articles. For example, there are articles on many high schools, malls, and hospitals. But others, like high school athletes, clubs, and family-owned single-location businesses rarely if ever have articles. Sebwite (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a grey area, but articles based on local news reports or rountine annoucements will fail WP:NOT and WP:NTEMP. Whether an article is suitable for merger of deletion will be dependent on how good a fit is the article's content is with WP:GNG. For instance, an article without "signficant coverage" will probably fail WP:CSD. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am describing here is not a series of news articles that give trivial mention to a subject, but more like, for example, a family-owned restaurant that has had articles written about it by local media outlets on several occasions in different calendar years, or a motel that has been around for decades, and has had the local media outlets write an article about it every time it has changed hands, along with other information on its history. Or a shopping center that has undergone various growths and renovations, and has has coverage each time this has happened. Sebwite (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In all cases you state, no, these would not likely be notable if the coverage is strictly local aimed from a local perspective. Mind you, exactly where a line can be drawn is hard and there's no clear direction we can really go for it. --M ASEM (t) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) My general view is that if the only folks talking about it are the locals, then it isn't notable as purely local sources is not truly third-party coverage. Unfortunately, many people also operate by the theory that "all high schools are notable" (fallacy in so many ways, but so far seemingly impossible to argue with), and "all high school athletes are notable" (again, they are not), and that "all malls past size X are notable" (not always, and not even usually). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is not really whether the coverage is local, but whether it is significant. Which must be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Dlabtot (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Local businesses and such need to comply with WP:ORG. Note that I'm not saying that they can't make a claim for notability under GNG:  I'm saying that in an AfD discussion, that claim will almost certainly be rejected if they don't also meet ORG's requirement of at least one source that provides significant coverage outside the immediate local area.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to provides significant coverage outside the immediate local area, it's just that it is nearly impossible to provide independent sources if you don't go outside the immediate area. If the proprietor knows the editor, or the business advertises in the newspaper, then the source is not independent and doesn't satisfy the GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It really does depend on the situation. "Local" is a misnomer for a news source, because what you would really want to consider is not the size of the area it covers, but the size of the population for which it is intended. And even then, every paper from The New York Times to a one-town weekly prints stories that are no more than press releases. Depth of coverage is what matters. Then there is the issue at heart - importance. Importance is specifically excluded from our definition of notability because as edtors of an encyclopedia, we do not allow ourselves to make that subjective judgement. Whether a subject has "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" is generally a bright line, yes-or-no answer (excluding debates defining "significant"). Anything else introduces some kind of subjective criteria whch would create even longer debates trying to determine if a subject is "important enough" to cover. We go by a simple standard - if reliable sources cover it with enough depth to write an article, we cover it. High schools, hospitals, and malls receive plenty of significant coverage regarding land acquisition, bonding, political debates, groundbreakings, construction, openings, events, etc. to easily write a comprehensive article. The fact that 99% of those sources are on microfiche buried in libraries and storage facilities is irrelevent. Plus there is also the fact one of the principles of WP is to act as not only a general interest encylopedia, but as an almanac and a gazetteer for the entirety of human knowledge. Those last two equal thirds of our mission pretty much require that we do not ignore subjects that can be covered.  Jim Miller  See me 22:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I once proposed a separate notability guideline for local interests (WP:LOCALINT). It didn't really get very far, but I am wondering if it is worth revisiting, since a lot of this is not clear from the notability guidelines listed. Also, the failed tag was applied to it, and I have recently challenged the ways in which this template is used. Sebwite (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not just "all high schools are notable" that has become policy by established practice. You will also find that all railway stations are notable. The questions then become, "are all police stations notable?", "all former branches of Woolworths?", and so on. I think the answer lies in the fact that a credible group of editors are willing to work on the article, bring it to an acceptable standard (according to the five pillars), and defend it at AfD. Therefore rail fans and high school students get their way because they actively and responsibly volunteer for the encyclopedia and research their topic, yet we don't see many police station fans or Woolworths fans, if they exist. Shopping mall articles can go either way. I have never been near Brent Cross, Mall America, or ZCMI, but I expect to see articles because interest in them is more than local, and they have been significant to economies with populations of hundreds of thousands or more. Others perhaps less so.

The General Notability Guidelines don't seem to be doing a bad job, though I have noticed that specific guidelines like WP:ORG seem to overrule the GNG occasionally in favour of deletion.

My opinion, in summary, is that the rules don't seem to bad, and tweaking the rules on local notability is unlikely to make the encyclopedia significantly more successful or accurate.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to challenge those assumptions. Nowhere does it say, in any policy or guideline, that "all high schools are notable", nor is it established practice. If a topic has not been noted in accordance with WP:GNG, then it is hard to argue that it is notable, regardless of subject matter. The fact remains, the only way to make Wikipedia significantly more successful or accurate is to increase the level of siginficant coverage from reliable secondary sources, not by watering down its policies and guidelines to accomodate special interest groups. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The presumed notability of high schools is a particular pet peeve of mine: The rule has been formally proposed at least four times (that I've seen) and has been firmly rejected each and every time -- and still there are a handful of editors that are unable to understand that their false assertion is false.  Unfortunately, those are the editors that hang out at the school-related AfDs, and all they seem to know about notability is that somebody once said that all high schools are notable -- and they're apparently gullible enough to believe such sweeping assertions of inherent notability.
 * As a practical matter, it happens that very nearly all (possibly >99%) schools with intermural sports teams easily meet the standard set by WP:ORG, but the articles are kept "because" they meet the usual sourcing standard, and not "because" they exist or "because" they enroll students of a certain age. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its an annoyance of mine as well. Even if >99% are notable (although highly doubtful, unless you come from the Enver Hoxha school of statistics), there is still likely to be a few that are not the subject of any coverage at all. Same for towns, motorways and professional athletes. No subject area is "inherently notable", and even if there was such a subject area, this is yet to be properly defined. As far as I am concerned, "inherent notability" is a racket dreamt up one day in an AFD debate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

SNGs

 * The argument that "all high schools are notable" holds no weight here. If a school or shopping mall has not been noted in accordance with WP:GNG, then it is not notable, no matter how much trivial or promotional coverage there is. The fact that other stuff exists has never been accepted as a basis for inclusion.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The various SNGs exist to provide presumptions of notability in lieu of the immediate existence of secondary sources. If it has been shown that for a reasonable sampling of average high schools or railway stations can be shown to be notable through the GNG, then there should be a SNG statement to that effect as being one of an SNG criteria that can be used alternatively to the GNG during article development until such a time that secondary sources are there. That said, I'm having a hard time presuming all high schools are going to be notable beyond local coverage, and specifically ignoring the type of coverage that results from the biographies of athletes and others ("Such-and-such attended Generic High School"... is not secondary coverage).  Any SNG criteria is one that will still eventually meet the GNG with the same broader coverage as we expect of all other topics, and I just can't see that happening on high schools (but would loved to be proved wrong). Rail stations I'm not so sure, but same justifications are needed. --M ASEM  (t) 14:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If a topic has not been noted, then how can it be notable? Statistical analysis, crystal balls and other subjective guess work are not verfiable evidence. Show me the sources every time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The SNGs provide a verifiable placeholder on the presumption of notability (eg "An actor that has won a major award", backed by a source confirming that award) until such a time as secondary sources become available or can be added, as determined by community consensus based on discussion that has shown that if that criteria is met, secondary sources like are to exist. That would need to be done for high schools and stations, technically.
 * But remember, we are not just an encyclopedia, we are an almanac, a gazetteer, and so forth. Everything that we'd want to include in those aspects of the works that are notable may not be notable-per-the-GNG. If there is strong consensus that, as part of being a gazetteer that we'd want to include every railway station (an argument I can see as being valid logic) even through most stations are likely just a dot on a map and a line in a timetable, then we should be including them. The same argument, however, is not easily made for high-schools. --M ASEM  (t) 14:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not answered the question. If a topic has not been noted, then how can it be notable? The relevance of "placeholders" such as awards to the question whether a topic should have its own article depends on whether the coverage of the award help it meet WP:GNG or not. For instance, if the award is not accompanied by significant coverage in accordance with WP:GNG, a topic has not been trulely noted, only mentioned in passing; if the source of the coverage is not independent, then surely that is self-promtion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the same as documented; a notable topic will likely be documented, but there are parts of mankind's breadth of knowledge that are not documented in depth (particularly the depth required by the GNG) but are notable and we'd want to include if we're attempting to summarize human knowledge. --M ASEM (t) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will answer the question for you. If a school or a mall has not been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG, its not notable. Including topics of local interest without evidence on the basis of subjective importance or subjective speculation can't be validated, as these inclusion criteria are a matter of editorial opinion alone, and so SNG can change that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. If it has not been noted by the GNG, it means it has not be noted by the GNG. But there are other reasons we may want to include articles on these topics determined by consensus.  If it is determined that every high school, despite the lack of GNG sources, should be included by a wide consensus, then we should include them.  Now I question if there has been any wide consensus to assert this, but if it did occur and resulted in their inclusion, we'd be including them regardless of how they fit the GNG.  The GNG is only one measure of inclusion standards for WP, but is likely the only formalized one that can be easily pointed to. --M ASEM  (t) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The various SNGs exist to provide presumptions of notability in lieu of the immediate existence of secondary sources. Not so. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Sources are required to satisfy any and all notability guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "secondary sources" is not the same term as "reliable sources". We need verification from reliable sources of meeting certain criteria to justify inclusion through an SNG (eg, a news article about a person winning a notable award), but at the immediate time, do not require the depth of discussion that secondary sources (by nature of WP:PSTS) offers. --M ASEM  (t) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But depth of discussion is needed, otherwise a topic has not been "noted" in accordance with WP:GNG, because being the subject of "significant coverage" is evidence of that the award is not simply a flash in the pan (WP:NTEMP). A school may win an award, and it may be reported as a matter of rountine, but such temporary things are not evidence of notability on their own, particularly if the school itself is the source of that information.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, eventually (considering the lack of WP:DEADLINE) topics that pass a verified SNG criteria need to pass the GNG; but the SNGs do not require secondary sources immediately on article creation. And SNG criteria should not include verifiable criteria that may be temporarily which can be the case with some awards, for example, but not all. --M ASEM (t) 19:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment on "all high schools are notable": Well, all high schools aren't, and the fact that those 99 high schools are notable doesn't tell you anything about that one over there.  But I've never yet seen an American comprehensive public (=government-funded) high school that didn't easily clear the bar set by WP:ORG.
 * This is because of a quirk of American schools: unlike academic institutions in most parts of the world, American schools are also the home of many sports teams that play outside of their local area.  One story about the sports team outside of the local area, plus a handful of local stories about the school, and you've trivially met WP:ORG and WP:GNG and any other standard that's ever been proposed.
 * Furthermore, most American middle schools also meet this standard, in exactly the same way. It's beyond silly to say that a school enrolling 13 year olds isn't notable, and that a school enrolling 14 year olds that has an identical (or even lower) level of coverage is magically notable because of the age of the students.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where I would consider the fact that the roaming coverage of a high school sports team is still local, and even then, the performance of a sports team at this level in no way impacts notability to the actual school itself. There may be some high school sports programs that are notable (eg some private-religious schools known for producing a high caliber of players year after year), but this is exceptional. --M ASEM  (t) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper scoop a different kettle of fish because although a local newspaper can be a reliable secondary source, WP:NTEMP may apply until such time as the story is coroborated by multiple sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I think the issue here is Masem is reading loopholes in the SNG's that don't exist. Since the SNG's don't to say "awards are evidence of notability instead of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources", then I think his interpretation is his own, as it is not stated explicitly anywhere. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The assertions in this section that there are circumstances or instances where sources are not required to establish notability are simply wrong, and not in any way based on our core policies. No matter how many times these assertions are repeated. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are still required, that's set by WP:V for any aspect. But the issue is that we don't have to have secondary sources to immediately assert notability if there is verifiable evidence to show that the topic is presumably notable by the SNG. --M ASEM (t) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course secondary sources are required, otherwise school and shopping mall prospectus' would be evidence of notability. Self-published sources are not evidence of notability when the subject matter is the same as the source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gavin, could you imagine a primary-but-independent source that suggested notability? I haven't ever seen this situation, but I can at least envision the possibility -- say, a newspaper "scoop" based on the reporter's presence at the discovery of some archaelogical site.  Basing a notability claim off of this might still be a WP:CRYSTAL violation, but perhaps it wouldn't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between third-party sources (required for verifiability) and secondary sources (preferred for notability). --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to WhatamIdoing, you may be mixing your primary with secondary sources. A self-published prospectus produced by a school or shopping is a primary source, for although it might contain an announcement that they had won an award, this is more or less self-promotion. Masem argues (incorrectly in my view) that an award is prima facie evidence of notablity, but its not; award announcements are just another type of source, no different from any other, and the coverage and the source of that coverage have to be evaluated as good or bad evidence of notability, e.g. award announcements from school itself is inadmissible.
 * No, I never stated any award, it has to be a award with merit. If we were talking about people, the Oscar or Emmy award for acting would certainly qualify, but not "Ms. Johnson's Best Behaved Student of the Week Sticker". Now, for high-schools, I have no idea if there's a notable award that even exists for them, but presumably if there was a SNG for schools, and one criteria was awards, the criteria would spell out what is considered a notable award to pass the SNG.--M ASEM (t) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Primary sources are never an indicator of notability. There are many articles on crappy, non-notable awards on Wikipedia that are used to support articles on non-notable people and organizations. Gavin.collins would make my week if he joined me in rooting these out. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Masem, I am not talking about awards without merit. Virtually all large scale educational and commercial organsiations win "awards with merit" as a matter of routine as WhatamIdoing pointed out earlier. They win football leagues, educational awards, green awards etc., and some awards are quite prestigious. The same for companies, they are always do stuff for the community, but if the coverage that goes with it is routine and not signficant, then a one line announcement in the school prospectus or the mall website is not evidence of notability. It is not possible to evaluate what is or is not an "award with merit" without verifiable evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources that are independent. We have to examine the coverage and its origin in order to weed out routine, trivial and self-promotional sources. Spam worst of all, I hate spam--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting into the weeds here, but I'm not disagreeing that a claim of notability via an SNG resting on the announcement of an award that has questionable merit or notability itself should be questioned as well. I would particularly rule out "awards" that can be achieved by completing some accomplishment (eg like a company completing community service, or a school that has a high graduation rate) as opposed to ones based on peer review or critique. The point I'm trying to say is that: If there is an SNG for schools that has a criteria that states that a school that receives a notable, non-trivial, non-routine award (one presumably vetted by the community for these aspects, possibly with its own page on WP), a school article can exist for some time and presume to be notable in the case where it is based on a single, third-party source that confirmed the receipt of this award.  Now, take the case that someone comes along and creates a school article in the same fashion, with only one source that says "this school won the Completely-Made-Up award".  Then one of two things likely will happen: it will be prodded for lack of notability, and/or it will then hit AFD where the validity of that award as a presumption of notability will be reviewed (in addition to asking for secondary sources about the school outside of the award).  If, in the same example, the award was clearly notable, then likely there would be no question on the notability presumption.
 * That is, if we are talking about articles that meet the SNGs and not the GNG at the present time, they still need to verify that qualification via some source (not necessary secondary), and editors should be prepared to prove the criteria itself is not something that is routine or trivial in nature, should that point be questionable. --M ASEM (t) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Masem, notability has to be supported by reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:GNG. Anthing less is just an arbitary exemption, because award coverage and other "placeholders" are sources, no diffferent from any other source. Perhaps we need to make this clear in this guideline. Has anyone a proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is exactly what the SNGs are doing. They are criteria that act as placeholders for the presumption of notability until more secondary sources appear or can be found. If you want to try to get rid of them, be my guest, but I'm pretty sure you'll meet a lot of resistance trying. --M ASEM (t)
 * I don't agree with your characterization of the SNGs at all. The whole idea of "placeholders for the presumption of notability" is completely unsupported by any wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:BIO or WP:BIO; they all state, basically, that "A person/book is presumed notable if they meet the GNG (with secondary sources) or meet any of the criteria (verified by sources) below". This is exactly using a placeholder, a verifyable statement towards one of the criteria listed, regarding notability until more sources appear.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dlabtot. "until more secondary sources appear" sounds like a arbitary exemption from the requirements of WP:GNG. Such an exemption for secondary sourcing is not made explicit in any SNG, so I think Masem's interpretation is just not supported. Overall, I think Masem's interpretations tend to ignore that topics on local interests are like any other subject matter in that they need to be supported by verfiable evidence of notability. Sources that are not present and may not appear are not verifiable, hence the coverage of awards and other "placeholders" has to be judged in terms of whether or not they consitute verifiable evidence in their own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words because we are getting into the weeds and you're confusing two different concepts; I completely agree that local interests are rarely notable, based on the fact that such coverage, while secondary, is usually strictly local, routine, or trivial. Even if the interest has received some type of recognition that would qualify it under some SNG (which I don't know if there are any that apply to the types of subjects that fall under local interests), that recognition needs to be more than something trivial or routine and reflect a larger geographical area before we can presume notability based on that.
 * Now, the completely separate point is about the SNGs in general (not just to local interests), which I have addressed above: they exist to provide placeholders for GNG-defined notability via verifiable evidence of meeting a specific criteria outlined on the pages, with the presumption that secondary sources will come in later. --M ASEM (t) 14:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Masem, then what he is proposing is not an exemption. Even so, WP:N can't give credit for sources that have not appeared, and may never appear. Notability requires verfiable evidence, and awards and other placeholders may fall short of the sourcing requirements in WP:GNG. If they do, then additional sources are required. If the SNG's say that they too require verifiable evidence, then awards and "placeholders" that fall short of WP:GNG also require addtional sources.
 * Please read WP:BK, specifically under "Criteria" which paraphrased, reads:
 * A book is concided notable if it can be verifibly shown to meet one or more of the following criteria:
 * # It meets the GNG standard for having secondary sources
 * # It has won a major literary award
 * # ...etc.
 * This directly states that evidence of winning a major award is a replacement for the GNG for meeting notability. All of the other SNGs have similar language of that effect. That's not any interpretation, that is exactly what these say. --M ASEM  (t) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only way we can verify that someone won a major award is by citing it to a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that source could be primary or not constitute "significant" coverage. We can cite the award-giver as a reliable source to confirm that it was awarded in an article about the recipient. The SNG tells us that an award of such significance will be written about by reliable sources. The SNGs allow us to account for the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources are not online, in english, in print, or otherwise readily available. The SNGs exist to point out scenarios where we believe we can reliably assume that such coverage exsists, even if it is not cited in the article. That is why the standard is not verified, but verifiable. There are still too many sources that require payment, a trip to a library, digging through microfiche, or some other hurdle to use, but we are reasonably sure that they exist and just need to be added to the article when an editor is able to overcome those obstacles.  Jim Miller  See me 19:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard is only verifiable because an inline citation points to a reliable secondary source, not because "we believe we can reliably assume that such coverage exsists". Verifiability is about evidence, not belief. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but what about when the only online source that can be found is that of the award itself? Let's put Wikipedia into 1980. Timothy Hutton won the Golden Globe and the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Hardly a thing had been written about him in depth in anything we would call a reliable source before that happened. Odds are that some editor here would have started his article based on "trade buzz" (all now covered in unreliable blogs) and a few single-line mentions in reviews of Ordinary People. There is no way he would have met the requirements of the GNG on the night of the Academy Awrds presentation, but he certainly would have been notable. Where in our guidelines is the allowance for such an article to be written and exist? It's in WP:V, in WP:GNG and in many of the WP:SNGs. If he had never acted again, he would still be notable. Many of the realiable sources of the time must be looked up on microfiche in a library. 5 years ago, archives weren't even available on the internet. Our entire system works based on the assumption that the sources may exist offline, and we haven't been able to access them yet. To quote policy from WP:V, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Many books, magazines, journals, and other sources of narrow scope are not available online or in English. They may no longer be in print. They may require access to a library to which the avergae editor does not have access. We need to allow for the fact that these sources exist because we assume good faith. That is exactly why the policy requirement is "verifiable" and not "verified." The latter would be about evidence. The former, which is policy, is not.  Jim Miller  See me 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on this topic - What are yours?
There is no guideline on Wikipedia excluding esoteric or otherwise obscure topics. Obscure does not mean not notable says "When an article meets WP:N or any other guidelines for inclusion, the mere fact that its subject is obscure does not under any circumstances mean it should be deleted. See also WP:IDONTKNOWIT or NOBODYREADSIT."

There are obscure living things, heavenly bodies, and scientific concepts not known to ordinary people that only a small number of experts and others in the related fields have any interest in reading or contributing to, yet regardless, if they meet the GNG, they are eligible to have articles.

Even if only one person will read the article every two years, that does not mean the subject is to be excluded on such grounds.

So when it comes to something that is a local interest, I feel the same guidelines apply. For example, in a town of 2000, there may be some restaurants, mom & pop shops, motels, places of worship, or cemeteries, just to name a few, that may technically meet the GNG by having two separate unaffiliated sources giving them coverage. It is possible that only a small fraction of these 2000 people in the town and few if any outsiders even know or care about the subject in question. Yet the GNG requirements are still met.

I do agree that trivial or temporary mention does not count toward notability (e.g. a robbery of an establishment that has no noted lasting effects). However, sources that mention elements of permanence do qualify, including those mentioning the original opening, changes in ownership, relocation, good and bad times the establishment has been through, impact on the community, etc.

What do others think? Sebwite (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as your argument is essentially is the same as WP:IKNOWIT based on "permanence". Rountine announcements, such as original opening, changes in ownership, relocation all fail WP:NTEMP. All spammy articles, such as public relations exercises and advertorials are based on routine announcements that make their subject matter sound more notable than they really are. If you oppose spam, oppose this proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not describing spam. Obviously, "announcements" are not reliable. But in-depth articles about a subject that tell about its history are. And the purpose of such articles is not promotion but neutral, encylopedic information. Many of these articles are written by strangers to the businesses who perhaps came across coverage of them in the sources.


 * There are indeed some articles on businesses with single locations and a mostly local clientele. Some examples are Greetings & Readings, Punk's Backyard Grill, Gramercy Mansion, just to name a few. Sebwite (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some obscure topics have enduring notability (most people aren't aware of obscure mathematical identities, anatomy or historical battles). But these tend to get in via commonsense. If it were formalized that "being known to only a small group is not a bar to notability" then the single most likely effect would be a significant increase in people wanting their bar, club, street, business, band, to have an entry, on the basis it's obscure but has a couple of references. The problem is that the more obscure, often the poorer quality or less significant the references too. For example, local newspapers routinely print editorials on local matters and yet Wikipedia is not a directory. The current balance seems to work well for me. Topics that genuinely have a claim to "enduring" or "historical" notability and to not being merely "indiscriminate" seem to get recognized. FT2 (Talk 07:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose but Sebwite, are you aware that this is essentially redundant? Wikipedia doesn't have any arbitrary standards about the size of a thing.  The standards are strictly how much attention the thing has received.  If a business -- whether it's a mom and pop store, or a massive multinational corporation -- has received attention outside of its local area, then that's enough.  Rube's Steakhouse in tiny Montour, Iowa (population <300) meets Wikipedia's standards; the local post office, which is across the street, doesn't.  We don't need a special rule that says only people who know about the restaurant and the post office are allowed to discuss its notability:  either these places have been "noted" and are "WP:Notable", or they haven't, and they aren't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is, why do you need the word oppose in the above comment? I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. There are indeed some mom and pop stores around the world that have a large enough amount of coverage that seemingly would meet Wikipedia guidelines. There are actually some I have thought about creating articles about myself. But I am attempting to discuss this matter before going ahead and doing so.


 * One of the main things I am wondering about is: do at least some of the sources have to be from outside the locality? If Rube's Steakhouse as you described in a small Montana town had long, in-depth, non-trivial, non-temporary coverage by several sources that are all based in and marketed to those in that town only, do you think that would make the business notable? Sebwite (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:ORG clearly requires the existence of one non-local reliable source. This is largely for two reasons:
 * Local media tends to be indiscriminate. For example, small-town newspapers might run a newspaper article about every single restaurant in town, giving each one 'equal time' so that their subscribers don't accuse them of playing favorites.  The presence of a detailed profile in a local media source is a very poor indication that the subject is really worth attention; it might have received a profile simply because its name was next on the list.
 * Wikipedia explicitly defines itself as a worldwide encyclopedia, by which we mean (in part), that it is WP:NOT a directory or collection of information about local businesses and interests. If no reader outside of a tiny geographic area  is likely to be interested in the subject, then it is probably not appropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. By those criteria, I meet the notability guidelines and could easily have my own article. I grew up in a small town, and my local newspaper and the newspapers for the two almost as small towns next door all published articles (over several years) detailing my middle school and high school accomplishments and summarizing my life. What does that coverage prove?  Simply that I was a smart kid in an area with little actual news. I can promise you, however, that I am not even close to real-world notable, and my opinion of WP would drop tremendously if I - or those with a similar background - were granted articles just because we had significant coverage in local papers.  I see this as the same for businesses - WP is not a local directory, and we shouldn't have an article on the mom-and-pop restaurant that feeds 20 people a night in a town of 1000 just because the local newspaper editor liked the food and profiled the restaurant several times. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean, like the countless "Local kid wins spelling bee" news spots that you can find a dime a dozen? :) Shereth 22:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per karanacs and WhatamIdoing. No, the little local mall in some little town does not warrant an article, no matter how many times the local paper noted events or store openings/closing about it. Ditto the mom and pop store that's been there 30 years. Just because it exists doesn't make it notable nor noteworthy. Wikia is that way and just as usable for such real world topics as for all the fictional stuff they have. If anything, the guidelines need to be strengthened to better clarify that such content is not appropriate for inclusion. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

With every added word will this discussion be nearer to consensus.
Consensus is an idea, not reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.192.108 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Plurality
The WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable source s that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

If the topic has received significant coverage in one reliable source -- that is, you really are confident that significant coverage truly exists in exactly one reliable source, not merely that only one source happens to be named in the stub so far -- does the subject fail GNG?

If so, I think we should be clear that the "s" in "reliable sources" really does indicate a requirement for a minimum of two sources, and if not, then I think the standard should be re-phrased to say "at least one reliable source".

Most 'obviously notable' subjects (such as Lion and Tulip and Wikipedia and Computer) would still trivially clear the hurdle even if we demanded two hundred sources instead of merely two, but are we actually requiring two? Is, say, a charitable organization, or a new concept in psychology, or an AltMed herbal therapy, really notable if only a single publication addresses it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The plural is intended (more than one). However, I suspect that the vagueness is also intentional because to say something like "at least two" would give the green light to any nonsense which happens to have two apparently independent reliable sources. Therefore, each case has to be argued on merit. Having only one RS would not force a failure of notability, but the subject would not get a tick under the clause quoted above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The bullets under this sentence currently include "Multiple sources are generally preferred.[3]" Would you object to changing this to say "Multiple sources are generally necessary"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would suit me, and making the change is probably the best way to determine if there is opposition. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. (And now to see whether anyone reverts it, and if someone does, whether s/he can find the talk page...)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting it, because that's making this guideline too strong; "preferred" is appropriate, "necessary" is not for the language of a guideline that remains a highly-disputed part of WP. Yes, 99% of the time, we want multiple secondary sources, but I can envision the case where we have a single secondary source from a indisputable source (say, a biography) alongside numerous facts from other sources that are not secondary (eg databases, fundamental details that have no burden of analysis).  I can't point you to an article presently like that, but I don't see that being unencyclopedic presuming the topic is of the type we'd want to cover. --M ASEM  (t) 07:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Generally necessary" (the actual text) is rather looser than "necessary". Multiple sources are always "preferred".  Would you prefer to have "always preferred" in the text?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very clear from WP:V that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and this point is further clarified in WP:RS. If WhatamIdoing can propose an amendement along these lines, I for one would support it. Masem's view is purely his own - there is no disputing the requirement for multiple sources, as evidenced by other content policies such as WP:NPOV ("A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view") and WP:OR ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"). It is absolutely clear that plurality of sources is "necessary", not just "nice to have". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Generally preferred" is exactly the right "strength of language" that a WP policy or guideline should be using; we are to be using descriptive language rather than prescriptive ones. "Generally required" is too strong, as now you'll have "notability enforcers" decide the bar at what "multiple" is - is it 2? 5? 10?... Leaving it preferred keeps the intent without the hazards of being misinterpreted. Even WP:V and the policies Gavin cites does not make the number of sources a requirement, and only strongly suggest multiple sources. (There are only two prescriptive polices on WP: BLP and NFC, because we've been told by the Foundation to do those. Everything else is what is derived from consensus). The other factor is that we have footnote #3, which describes what happens to topics based on a single source, which is exactly the advice that this section is worried about - with that footnote, immediately after we tell the reader that multiple sources are preferred, we explain the consequences of not having multiple sources. But I am unwilling to presume that we have never let an article stand on a single strong reliable secondary source and a handful of primary sources if there was good reason to keep it. --M ASEM  (t) 14:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, can you give me a single instance of a single reliable source being actually preferable to that source plus another decent source? The idea that any editor would ever "prefer" a single good source to two just-as-good sources is so mind-boggling to me that I'll take even hypothetical scenarios.  I have never seen an AfD closed as delete because someone produced too many sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be misreading - I am not suggesting that one source is ever preferred over multiple sources if multiple sources do exist. But I am saying that while we prefer multiple sources, we can't summarily dismiss an article built on a single source (though through footnote #3, that source better be of utmost quality and reliability and that the topic best be a core one for the work), which is why "required" is too strong a word. "Recommended" is certainly plausible. --M ASEM (t) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. You have rejected my suggestion of "always preferred" in favor of "generally preferred".  Do you, in fact, not believe that multiple sources are "always" preferred, and that multiple sources are only "generally" preferred, and that therefore, in some unspecified cases, the existence of more than one independent source is actually not preferred to the existence of a single source?
 * If you don't think that having multiple independent sources is ever worse than having a single independent source, then perhaps you will consider your rejection of stating, as a plain fact, that having multiple independent sources is "always" preferable to having a single independent source -- a statement that I interpret as meaning "Exceeding the minimum standard for sourcing never makes an article more likely to be deleted than doing the bare minimum."
 * Or perhaps the problem is that we do not use a common definition for the word preferable? "Preferred" does not mean "required".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The change you made was not to "always preferred" (Which I agree with) but to "generally required", which I've explained why that is inappropriate. Of course multiple sources are always preferred over a single source.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but immediately above the reply in which you reject it, you'll find my effort at a compromise that clearly features the phrase "always preferred", and which you appear to reject. Do you, in fact, reject this idea?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't reject "always preferred", in the implication that we always want multiple sources over a single source. However, that's funky language, and rather, if it has to, be replaced with something like "recommended" or "strongly recommended". --M ASEM  (t) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Go with "generally necessary" rather than "generally preferred." The rest of the guideline goes into quite a bit of detail as to why multiple sources are generally necessary, and "generally preferred" just seems like bad writing. A preference would seem to be by nature a generality, especially one expressed in a guideline. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources are always preferred. Single source articles can be accused of being derivative articles.  So we certainly don't want to encourage new writers to build single sourced articles.  But, where there is a single good, reliable, independent source on a topic, surely others also exist, so in general, only having a single source should not be state to be bad, because that would turn into an unfair reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, articles should not be deleted due to having merely one good source. But here's an example of where a very good single source is about a topic that I don't think we should (try to) cover.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about simply "Multiple sources are preferred" (rather than "generally preferred", "always preferred" or "required")? Would that be less controversial? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefered as a word is too wishy washy. In the field of accountancy, it is possible to drive a wagon and horses over any rule which is "preferred", rather than a requirement, and I suspect it is much the same in Wikipedia. For editors like Masem, the fact that WP:N is just a guideline is enough for him to claim it is not a requirement. However, it is clear from the content policies that underpin this guideline that multiple sources are a requirement, not just "prefereable" or "nice to have". I would support an amendment along the lines of:


 * "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are necessary to provide evidence that an article topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies."


 * I think if the amendment explains why multiple sources are a requirement, that will put this issue beyond dispute and provide good guidance in the process. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if notability was a policy, "required" is too strong a word for our policies which are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that notability remains a guideline, and a oft-contested one, means we cannot be stronger than any other policy, and requiring something is in fact doing just that. We can say something's preferred, we can say its recommended, we can caution against the lack of multiple sources, but we cannot outright say that multiple sources are required, because as noted by Smokey Joe above, there are articles that may temporarily sit as single-source articles and not be challenged at all for notability due to the content matter - thus refused any "required" aspect. --M ASEM (t) 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When practice is settled, then guidelines can legitimately tell editors what that practice is, and even tell them that something "always" this way or "never" that way. Telling editors that, e.g., completely unverifi able articles will always be deleted does not violate our goal of using guidelines to describe actual practice ("descriptive") rather than to change or control practice ("prescriptive").  The goal of describing practice does not require us to describe standard practices in a manner that is ambiguous, likely to be misunderstood, or likely to leave the reader thinking that the standard is more optional than usual.
 * Notability does not require any article to name any sources. Notability concerns itself solely with whether sources exist -- anywhere in the world, in any language, in any format.  If a handful of solid, independent sources exist, and you name exactly zero of them, then you have, in actual fact, cleared the hurdle set by this guideline. As a practical matter, an article is less likely to have its notability challenged if you name sources (for the convenience of other editors), but there's not a single sentence in this guideline that requires you to name a source.  Therefore the existence of  articles that name only a single source is a red herring:  WP:N accepts zero named sources -- so long as sources that could be named exist somewhere in the world.  This is why this page directly says, "an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about plurality

 * My concern is here is not how I view WP:N, but that I'm aware that there's two different sets, comprising roughly 25% of the involved editing pool each (really rough numbers based on semi-recent RFCs). One set believes notability should be policy level and are not afraid to use it to remove articles they don't see as encyclopedic, even to the point that "no sources" == "non-notable". The other set reject notability primarily seeing it hurt the "not paper" aspect of WP, and in part due to actions of the first set when given the tools to AFD articles left and right. Obviously, there's a balance in the middle, in that notability is a guideline but not an end-all to inclusion. Unfortunately, while there haven't been any major inclusionists/deletionists battles for a while, we have to be fully aware of the impact of any changes on this. The move to a language that suggests 100% compliance is required is going to be treated as a hammer by those deletionists even if it is a guideline, and the whole thing will inflame again.  Yes, common sense and knowledge of WP policies and guidelines imply that while "required" is given, it is not necessarily to be held to, but I've seen enough of these battles to know that people will wikilawyer that language to get their way. I have no qualms about strengthening the statement about emphasizing multiple sources because that is practice, but requiring them could start yet another i/d standoff that no one benefits from. --M ASEM  (t) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Masem, I must be missing something. As far as I can tell, notability is Wikipedia's sole standard for deciding whether a subject gets a separate article.  Notable=gets an article.  Non-notable=does not get an article.
 * Do we agree on this fundamental point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I contend that there are topics for which notability doesn't apply. These are topics for which there is no suspicion that the authors are influenced by personal, or parochial interest, such as topics from distant history or the sciences, where the topic is so specific that no previous encyclopedia happened to include it.  For such topics, a reasonable amount of verifiable material is sufficient.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SmokeyJoe here. If WP:N was the sole standard for inclusion, it would be policy, and AFDs would be a lot simpler. It is one measure of inclusion but not the only one. What those other ones are - however - is not well-defined but to what degree it suits the requirements of being an encyclopedia and other reference works. --M ASEM  (t) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, we aren't talking about the same thing. Do you believe:
 * that all subjects can be classified as being either notable or non-notable? (not infallibly, accurately, perfectly, etc. classified -- just that all subjects could be assigned to one of two non-overlapping classes ("notable" and "non-notable"), and no subjects could be reasonably assigned to simultaneously both notable and non-notable, or to some third class.)
 * that only notable subjects get articles on Wikipedia?
 * Please pay attention to the links: I'm not asking whether you think that only subjects that happen to comply with the current written version of this page should get articles.  I'm trying to use plain English here for a minute.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (#1) Yes. The second is defined to be the exclusion of the first.
 * (#2) No. notable is an extremely loose standard.  Many things (but not everything) that is notable is subjected to the tighter WP:N test.  Some (eg highly specific historic and scientific) things that fail WP:N are included, and some things (eg BLPs) can meet WP:N but still be excluded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Try adding the word "should" to my second question, then. Or perhaps it would be better to consider it in the reverse:  Do you believe that non-notable subjects should not be given separate articles on Wikipedia?  (The question phrased in the reverse eliminates practical complications about whether any editor has bothered to write an article.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already did assume "should". There are no non-notable subjects in Wikipedia because an editor adding it causes it to be defined as notable.  This is not facetious.  Try redefining notable to exclude something verifiable but never before noted before some anonymous volunteer noted it.  You'll be in a position similar to that of Uncle G when he began his essay.  You'll have started down the path where you'll find that notable is next to useless, "notable" was probably a poor choice of word, and you'll probably end up recreating WP:N.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please pretend that the existence of the article doesn't count for this purpose, since whether the article is going to exist is exactly what is in question. Alternatively, evaluate the notability as it existed two seconds before the hypothetical article was created here.
 * What I'm trying to get at is not complicated. This isn't a trick question.  I need to know whether you believe that subjects that you would describe as non-notable (in the plain English sense) are the kinds of subjects that you think Wikipedia should have separate articles about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be answering for Joe, but IMO, yes, we don't include topics that are non-notable per the english definition of the word. But, and this is very important, WP:N is not an embodiment of the english definition of the word "notability", which is why this is a trick question. What would fall under "notability" defined by WP:N is only a subset of what would fall under the english language definition of "notability". --M ASEM  (t) 07:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a trick question? It is a tricky question.

Subjects that I describe as non-notable (in the plain English sense) are NOT the kinds of subjects that you think Wikipedia should have separate articles about. Yes, I agree with that.

I admit that I am having trouble coming up with examples of existing articles that fail WP:N but belong anyway. In trying, I find myself rather impressed with the quality of the article returned by Special:Random. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As regards whether some topics will be notable in the future, there is nothing we can do about that now. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but that does not mean we have to have a seperate article on every single insect if there is coverage is thin or non-existent. The best we can hope to achieve is to concentrate on writing an encyclopedic articles about notable topics which can meet Wikipedia's content policies. If there is a scarcity of coverage, then it does not matter if a prospective topic is "discriminate", "adds to human knowledge" (or some other measure of subjective importance); without sources, you can't write an article about it, not matter how important it is to you. If we follow the path that Masem is suggesting, Wikipedia will simpily end up more stubs that do not provide the reader with any meaningful understanding than decent articles. Or put it another way, if we were paid for our work, I am sure our readers expect comprehensive well rounded articles, not half-baked stubs. Just because the readers don't pay for our efforts, it does not mean we should be serving them thinly sourced crap. I think Masem has to put aside his concerns about plurality of sources if he is concerned by the quality of encylopedic articles in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, you seem to object on 12 January to the common notion that "no sources=non-notable". But you also say here that [wikt:non-notable subjects shouldn't have separate articles.  These two positions appear to be irreconcilable.
 * If no sources exist, then the subject is non-notable, because the very act of "noticing" it creates sources. Either you actually require the existence of sources, or you don't -- and if you don't, then notability can't be your standard for deciding whether a subject should have an article.
 * Here's a hypothetical situation that might help illustrate the issue and tie it back into the original question:
 * On Sunday, I invented something revolutionary -- let's say it's a simple, cheap, pollution-free, solar-powered device that turns excess CO2 into diamonds and breathable oxygen. The whole world will change as a result.  On Monday, I self-publish a website about it and give a bunch of interviews.  On Tuesday, the Trib runs a full-page story.  On Wednesday, the WSJ runs a big story.  On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronc run big stories.  On Friday, three more big newspapers run stories.  On Saturday, five news outlets publish stories.
 * On which day did my invention become notable? On Sunday, when nobody had noticed it?  On Monday, when I was the only person who published anything?  On Tuesday, when the first independent source had noticed it?  On Wednesday, when the second one did?  One Saturday, when a dozen had?
 * In the spirit of this not being a trick question, I'll tell you my opinion: I think that the subject became notable on Tuesday, and WP:N-style notable no earlier than Wednesday.  In other words, I think that WP:N does actually require the existence (not:  "the naming" or "the citing in the article", but the existence) of two independent published sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was notable as an idea on Sunday morning. But there wasn't objective evidence of independent WP:N style notability until at least Wednesday, possibly longer as the stories may have been a short burst of news reports repeating the facts without transformation, but you did say "stories", and "story" usually means the primary source material has been transformed into secondary source material, whereas "report" usually means copying of the primary source material.  Tuesday only has a single secondary source, and I'm not sure of the depth of coverage, most of the story could have bee a tangential discussion of the author's existing hobbyhorse.
 * I think the point is that two independent reputable secondary sources make an article, but we don't want to suggest that if there is only one then the article should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not?
 * If you believe that my invention doesn't actually meet the WP:N-style standards until (at least) Wednesday, then why wouldn't you refuse to create an article about it (or prod it for deletion, or any of the many other options) on Tuesday? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda as per below, but many things would be so much easier if we refused references under 12 months old. Wikipedia is about the knowledge of humanity.  It shouldn't be rolling current affairs.  Not that I dislike it being up-to-date.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this is a bad example to work for - current events are difficult to talk about.
 * Let's look at this from the larger picture. Our inclusion guidelines should be based on making an encyclopedia that catalogs human knowledge but at the same time is indiscriminate. That's the only bounds outlined by the Foundation.  The GNG sets a bound on the indiscriminate side to prevent everyone's pet project from being included if there's no sources. That's a good thing. But at the same time, there are topics we should include from being an encyclopedia. One of relatively recent interest is any government-recognized town and village in the world; it's been shown through consensus that regardless of the state of these articles, we want to include them because, partially, we're a gazetteer, and these are encyclopedically important topics. These would certainly be considered, via the english language, notable. At the same time, these, particularly for third-world countries, often would fail the GNG or other general notability guidelines (case in point Kalabo found in 3 clicks), but good luck trying to delete it.  In otherwords, we have at least one large class of articles that falls inside the bounds of notable but not WP:GNG but that we know we keep. --M ASEM  (t) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely convinced that nobody has ever published anything about these places? Really?  I'm not:  I am, in fact, highly skeptical of any claim that zero reliable sources exist for any government-recognized town or village, anywhere in the world.  The very act of government recognition should provide us with a source.
 * Again, WP:N-style notability requires the existence of the sources -- not "The sources are already named in the article", not "Mr Google leads me straight to the sources", but "somewhere, some place, someone has noticed this thing." If you tell me that you haven't found anybody taking notice of a place that (by definition) a government has taken notice of, I'll assume that the problem is in your search strategy, not in an actual lack of sources.
 * I picked my hypothetical scenario with care, because it gets me back to the actual issue at hand: If you know -- absolutely, without the least possible doubt -- that in the entire history of the world, exactly one independent person has ever published anything at all about a subject, do you agree that (no matter how wonderful the one source or how amazing you think the subject inherently is) that the existence of that sole source is not actually sufficient to meet WP:N's standards?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot be convinced that we'd outright disallow a topic that falls into "exactly one source" scenario. I can't point to a topic or example that would be the case, but I would suspect it is when you start approaching topics in the upper attics of academics - things along the lines of a specific insect species, a 1-in-a-billion rare disease or something where a leading expect has documented it but no one else has made note of it beyond any factual (non-secondary) data.
 * But its not also for the reason that a topic may only have exactly one secondary source, ever. It is the fact that policy lawyers (we know they exist) read WP:N exactly and while the intent is that we want the verification of the existence of multiple sources, they will be excruciating on having the existence of multiple sources shown in the article at that exact moment they looked at it. I know we have things like WP:BEFORE and WP:DEADLINE but given what I've seen in recent discussion, the pendulum of editing has fallen back a bit away from "assuming good faith" and back towards "if you want to keep it, you have to show it".  (Mind you, I'm all for the fact if you're including questionable statements, you need to back up with a source at that point but this is different from article notability.)  There is a lot of intent for how WP:N is supposed to be handled, but it is more often taken word-for-word instead of common sense.  Which is why adding anything as strong as "required" is just more ammo for the policy lawyers and will definitely re-ignite the war.
 * One thing to consider: we are trying to include any topic that is a non-indiscriminate part of human knowledge, but we are trying to use secondary sources for that. It is important to recognize that multiple secondary sources are a happenstance of nearly all facets of human knowledge that are non-indiscriminate, and thus the idea we can use the existence of multiple secondary sources as the measure of non-indiscriminate information is all well-and-good. But this still goes back to the point above I've made: not all non-indiscriminate facets of human knowledge necessarily receive coverage in multiple secondary sources. It needs to be asserted that multiple secondary sources are a consequence of being a notable topic, but it is neither a truism that all notable topics gain secondary sources, or that a topic that has multiple secondary sources are notable. The measure of "multiple secondary sources" is great for contemporary topics due to the proliferation of the Internet, but not a universal yardstick across all of human knowledge for notable topics. --M ASEM  (t) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this guideline does not disallow any topics (as they can appear as sub-topics within another article), then this is not a problem. Topics with only one secondary source may well be notable eventually, but they are not suitable for a standalone article at this time, and are probably best featured within the context of an article about a more notable over-arching topic so that the reader can fully understand its significance.
 * WP:N is, by design, an exclusion guideline - that is, it is designed to restrict the creation of articles for only those topics that are shown to be "notable" through multiple secondary sources. Now, for most of what we have with contemporary topics, it's perfectly rationale -there's so many that we need to exclude a large number of them to avoid indiscriminate information. But again, when we turn to core topics of human knowledge -history, science, etc - it is a very poor direct measure. To reiterate: the presence of secondary sources usually falls out from core academic topics due to the fact they are considered core academic topics, not because someone decided to write about them. As a result, most (99% or more) core academic topics will have secondary sources, but not all. Those that don't are the ones that fall into the english definition of notable but not the WP:N definition.
 * And its not always the case that a core academic topic that has a single source will be a stub. Again, if we have a notable expert that has researched a species of insect, documenting it's lifespan, reproduction, dietary habits, etc., as we would have in any other animal species article (take sea otter for example), to a large enough degree, the article would not likely be simple a stub. I'm all for trying to avoid stubs that never will have a chance to expand (eg the general clause in WP:ATHLETE allowing an article on any pro sports player, is, in my opinion, pushing good faith on what we should be including, since most will be bio stubs forever unless they are stars). If there is core information that we need to include due to our goal of being an encyclopedia/almanac/gazetteer, but that most of those individual entries likely will never be expanded beyond a few lines, then yes, that should be pushed into lists or tables.  But to the case in point, it is not 100% the case that a topic that is considered notable but not meet WP:N is going to be a stub or should be a stub.  I know we're talking a very tiny fraction of the body of articles out there, but I stress again: WP:N is a core battleground between inclusionists and deletionists, even if right now it is a tenuous balance between them. Any shift of how WP:N is handled without seeking wide consensus will likely set off the battle yet again. --M ASEM  (t) 07:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, what I get from your statement above is that you actually do agree that the existence of two (or more) secondary sources is "always" required -- but you're afraid to actually say this in plain language, because certain editors have not figured out the difference between WP:N's requirement that sources "exist" and WP:V's requirement that sources be named.
 * Could we perhaps solve both problems? Could we indicate that generally more than one source is required here, and also provide some clarity about the difference between requiring sources to exist and requiring sources to be named?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The aspect of differentiating between the sources being shown and the assumption that sources will likely exist may help, but there are still those long entrenched in the battle that won't recognize that or will take that too strongly. I would say it is there in between the lines in understanding how the sub-notability guidelines work (there, for example, we don't even require an immediate secondary source to be shown, only a source to affirm the criteria at that time, though we assume that will lead to secondary sources). But to go back to the original change suggested, it still comes down to "required" being too strong.  A line that says "Multiple secondary sources are strongly recommended." is a better capture than "generally preferred" (or whatever it is presently). "strongly recommended" means there may be a bit of wiggle run for odd cases, but you'll have less a fuss if there are at least a handful of secondary materials to work from. Heck, "strongly recommended" is what I would consider to be the current atmosphere of AFDs based on lack of notability moreso than "general preferred". And truthfully that word change emphasizes the original point of this thread (that it is multiple sources we desire) but doens't change how people would handle WP:N, even the ones that are policy-wonking and acting as lawyers on the exact wording. --M ASEM  (t) 07:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you see an important practical difference between "generally required" (that is, we are plainly stating that sometimes multiple sources are not required) and "strongly recommended"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, in two ways. First, the easiest is that when you start playing the telephone game w.r.t. to describing policy, words can go missing, and I would fully expect that "generally required" would morph in editors' minds to "required" if they are not carefully, which is too strong a statement. The same can happen with "strongly recommeded" but "recommended" doesn't change any approach to the guideline. The second aspect is understanind that those that ready policy and guideline word for word will imply that with "generally required" there are exceptions, and we know what those exceptions are. I don't think any one of us can provide that here.  On the other hand, while  "strongly recommended" also implies exceptions, it does not beg the question of what they are, but knowing that we fall back to consensus decisions when necessary.  That's a better description of the end results of AFDs on such issues. --M ASEM  (t) 17:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are required, that is the consensus. If you want to make a proposal, anything you want to add about exceptions or AFD should go into the section Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, again, if consensus considered multiple secondary sources required, WP:N would be a policy. It has never gotten enough consensus to be there. --M ASEM (t) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are required by policy - see my post above. Making this requirement explicit in this guideline is not in any way related to its status as a guideline. I am not following your arguement: why is this an issue? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only for controversial subjects. Not everything is automatically controversial. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole "it's not a formal policy, so it has to pretend that the community's requirements are just recommendations" line of reasoning is illogical, widely rejected by the community (see WP:BURO), and demonstrably false: WP:EL is "just" a guideline, and it cheerfully requires certain things and prohibits others; WP:RS is "just" a guideline and it requires certain things; WP:CITE is "just" a guideline and -- but you've probably figured out the pattern by now, correct?  The label at the top of the page is not what determines whether the community normally requires, or does not normally require, the existence of more than one reliable source for subjects that are given their own articles.  IMO, the community does expect the subject of every article to have been "noticed" by more than one secondary source, and this page should accurately represent what the community does -- even if that means that we have to use a word that someone might misremember or quote out of context.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, still falls back on the idea that policy/guidelines are meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I cannot find (mind you, I'm just searching for key words, not reading in depth, so I may have easily missed something) where "must" or "require" appear in the above linked examples when associated with actions editors take (eg, EL uses "sites requiring registration", but that's a descriptive term there) There are very limited cases outside of BLP and NFC where we use prescriptive language.  That is why, while most of the time we're looking for multiple sources for notability, we occasionally allow for articles to go by AFD on the strength of one.  As long as the end result of any discussion remains with what consensus determines, WP:IAR if need be, our policies and guidelines can only be as strong as descriptions of current practice and cannot prescribe actions.  And I realize it seems silly to be worried about how one word will impact things, but I have been watching notability for nearly 3 years now, and I am pretty confident how one word will affect the system. --M ASEM  (t) 12:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem, "should" is a prescriptive word. It tells you what to do.  "You should not normally link that" is grammatically prescription; "Editors do not normally choose to link that" is description.  We accept prescriptive statements in all of our guidelines and policies.
 * What we mean when we talk about the difference between prescription and description is the source of the advice: the written guidelines should primarily(!) describe and reflect the community's already-existing view of an issue; they should not invent new rules for the purpose of changing the community's practices.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and Verifiability policy are separate but inextricably linked, and editors will sometimes (intentionally or otherwise) borrow language from one to use in a discussion about an article's compliance of the other. I also think there may be a few cases where a single reliable source is enough to establish notability of an obscure subject, particularly if it falls into one of the categories for which articles are generally accepted (e.g. towns and villages, species of flora and fauna). Any perceived change in the "rules" could incite fresh inclusionist/deletionist conflict. I applaud the sensible attitudes of editors on this page who point out the difference between the existence of sources and requiring editors to produce them, but unfortunately not everyone understands or accepts this distinction. Sourcing for foreign subjects can be particularly problematic, and if only one reliable English language source is available it may be better to leave it that than have editors citing Google translations of material they don't understand in an effort to prove notability. If a subject has been written about mainly in other languages and also predates the internet, sourcing can be doubly problematic, and this issue can contribute to WP:systemic bias. I will now withdraw from this discussion for at least 5 days since I'm participating in the second WP:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One or two
Masem thinks reliable sources are "nice to have" in most cases, while John Z thinks they are generally require only one, while Jinnai thinks that a mix of reliable and primary source is all that is needed. All in all, I would describe these lines of arguement as being based on very selective instances of what these editors think are the inclusion criteria for a standalone article, but not general ones. The problem I have with selective apprach is that it basically it is an attempt to water down the whole premise of "notability", which essentially requires a topic to have been "noted" by the world at large, but having been noted by just one reliable secondary source does not constitute the world at large. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC) The key reason to understanding why plurality of sources is a requirement is that, inclusion criteria based purely on the existence of a single secondary source would invite the creation of multiple content forks. In otherwords, "one reliable secondary source = one standalone article", regardless of whether another article already exists on the same topic" is not supported by any policy or guideline. To paraphrase what WhatamIdoing asked earlier, "how do you figure out what's WP:DUE if only a single reliable secondary source exists?" If the answer is that editors could create new articles everytime a new reliable secondary source becomes available, then there would be an incentive to create content forks and no incentive to write balanced articles. If inclusion is based on the premise that "one reliable secondary source = one standalone article", that would justify the creation of articles such as "Reasons given for Voluntary Euthanasia" and  "Reasons given against Voluntary Euthanasia". It is just not practical for this guideline to support or endorse the creation of standalone articles based on single sources, because competing sources about a recognised topic would be used to support content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In practise this issue rarely arises. If editors don't like a topic (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) then they will rubbish the sources regardless of their number by claiming that they are not significant or otherwise inadmissable.  If they like the topic (e.g. asteroids or solar eclipses) then they will ignore the sourcing requirement.  The matter is thus most often a popularity contest rather than turning upon an exact number. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If policy says that multiple secondary sources a requirement, would there be any reason why WP:N should provide some form of exemption from this requirement? It is one thing to pretend that the community's requirements are just recommendations, but it seems to me that arguing in favour of one rule for policy and another for guidelines is disingenuous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No policy requires multiple secondary sources. No policy even mentions multiple secondary sources. --M ASEM  (t) 12:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources...". Arguing that secondary sources are not a requirement for an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources is, frankly, disingenuous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, you exactly noted that it uses the word "should" - a descriptive word - instead of "must" or "require" - prescriptive words. That statement there implies there's wiggle room when consensus deems it appropriate to allow articles to not be sourced to secondary sources.  Again, this comes to the fact that only a handful of policies and guidelines - primarily those dealing with legal ramifications set by the Foundation - are prescriptive, the rest are descriptive and have room for exceptions when it improves the encyclopedia. --M ASEM  (t) 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I continue to be impressed by the breadth of wikipedia's well-sourced coverage. It is very hard to find anything, no matter how obscure, not already well covered.  But I think I found one example, an article lacking secondaary source coverage of the subject, but where the subject should not be deleted at AfD: Ship motion test.  Highly specific, factual, verified in a reliable source, no suspicion of being driven by an editor with a WP:COI.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * in answer to Masem, you are just playing with words to make them fit your viewpoint. We both know that there is not a single Wikipedia policy that says "you must do this, you must do that"; even WP:BLP uses the word "should" when it comes to removing contentious content. Again, arguing that secondary sources are not a requirement for an encyclopedia built upon reliable secondary sources is disingenuous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP is not "built" on reliable secondary sources - that's an outcome, but not a part, of the work's mission. Our encyclopedia is built on summarizing human knowledge in a discriminate manner and based on verifiable information. That is how topics should be included.  For 99+% of them, the presence of secondary sources is a great indicator of that, but I stress again and again, that is not universally true for 100% of all topics we want to include. WP:N is a good subjective measure - the fuzziness between "pass" and "fail" is not very wide, but still exists and thus makes for a poor objective measure. But that's why I stress our policies are purposes descriptive because we are aware there is fuzziness depending on the topic and situation. I don't disagree that we prefer and recommend multiple secondary sources for notability, but cannot accept a statement of "require" for that reason, because it eliminates the necessary fuzziness that all policies and guidelines are to have. --M ASEM  (t) 12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Policies have generally been written so they do not require multiple sources. There is a misinterpretation of standard English here. "Articles should be based on reliable .. sources" does not mean "Each article should be based on a plurality of reliable sources."John Z (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * John Z, how do you figure out what's WP:DUE if only a single (non-self-published) source exists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Base it on what the single source says + info from any primary sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of fancy footwork in evidence here. WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so we know that policy on Verifiability does require multiple sources in relation to whether or not Wikipedia should have an article about a particular topic in the first place.
 * Though of course it is not as unambiguous as it would be if WP:V said "no reliable .. source", this is again not standard English usage.  The locus classicus poking fun at this nonstandard distinction is described here.  Try entering an establishment with a sign saying "No dogs allowed" or "No bare feet", with just one dog, while wearing just one shoe. :-)John Z (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I have never said reliable sources are "nice to have". It's understanding the difference between the strength of an article that is backed by numerous secondary sources verses an article that is backed by a single secondary source - without consideration of what the topic actually is, I can tell you which one will likely be kept at a deletion review. A topic with anything less than multiple secondary sources will likely be deleted. But again, that's not an assurance; if the topic is about a modern contemporary topic, I'd be confident we'll end up deleting the single source article, but if it is a core academic topic, I doubt we would.
 * The version of WP:N, if hard-pressed to be treated and enforced as the only means to determine topic inclusion in WP, waters down the goal of WP to summarize notable human knowledge, because not all notable human knowledge gains multiple secondary sources. WP:N is a guidepost that applies well to most topics: being notable usually result in being discussed in more than one source; but WP:N does not work for all topics, and because of that, it can only be a guidepost and not an absolute objective measure. It is in WP's best interest to have a weaker inclusion standard - potentially including more topics at the fringe of notable, and deal with having to AFD these articles (with the option of merging and keeping that information elsewhere) - than exclude articles pre-maturely because of strict WP:N enforcement which is going to turn editors away. --M ASEM (t) 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with John Z. Those saying WP:V requires every article to have multiple such sources are using the pitfalls the English language phrasing to push an obviously contriversial measure that would effectively be stronger than a policy in the guise of a guideline (because they know they cannot promote it to a policy).
 * I'm not saying multiple such sources isn't desirable, nor am i saying no sources is also okay. I'm saying for encyclopedic articles one such source could be okay under certain circumstances. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this fancy footwork is that it is not supported by any guideline or policy. If only one source was needed to establish notability, surely this guidelines would say "one is enough"? However, it does not. In fact, none of Wikipedia's content policies say one source is sufficient to assure compliance, so we can rule out Jinnai's interpretation.
 * I have no problem stressing that for the average topic that commonly appears in WP, that one source for notability is not enough to sustain an article on that topic. But again, there is clearly potential for exceptions where a single secondary source is sufficient to establish notability. Yes, we don't want the language to suggest that "hey, I've found one source, time to make an article!" is always acceptable behavior. Which is why back to the case in point, I can support strengthen the original text from "generally preferred" to "strongly recommended" to further that point, and stress that the single-source-for-notability is a rare exception and requires that the source to be of utmost reliability.  But we just cannot close the door on those cases by using the "required" language.   (Also, remember, 2 secondary sources may not always equal notability.  It may take 3, 5, or even 10 sources if the topic is only briefly discussed in each source but from a different viewpoint.  We are careful to avoid any numbers, beyond the "singular" vs "plurality" here, for that reason). --M ASEM  (t) 13:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Massem here. For some subjects, e.g. the popular but often attached video game and book characters,  a single secondary source and then the primary source(s) itself should be fine. I dont agree that there is a conflict with policy, as its seems to specify the ideal  (i.e. uses the word should), it doesnt say articles necessarily  have to have multiple sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, that is a case I would disallow. (Mind you, we're talking presumption of sources); if there is or will only be a single secondary source for a character, that pretty much is never going to be notable per WP:N (there's also the fact we have a merge target for these). What you're suggesting is exactly the concerns that Gavin is mentioning.  The exceptional cases, as I imply, are ones of core academic interest. --M ASEM  (t) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me reiterate here. It is not that the "one source" exception is geared towards any specific topic, but it is based on the quality of that one source. I gave an example of animal species that has been written extensively by one person, an renowned expert in the field, in a book, as to give more than just a stubby article. Now, if a fictional character got a similar treatment by, say, an field-leading expert in literature or the like, then I could expect the same allowance for single source notability. But practically, I would very likely doubt there would ever exist such a case of a fictional character over an animal species.  It is not intended as a bias against that type of topic, but a natural result of the type of sourcing that topic attracts. --M ASEM  (t) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "one source" exception, as that conflicts with V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Furthermore WP:OR says that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". It is disingenious to say that one source is evidence of notability, because WP:GNG itself says that reliable sources are required. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolution? two, typically typically typically typically mostly?

 * It looks like just about everyone agrees that for the typical subject, in the typical circumstances, with typical sources, (etc.), that articles for which only one independent source can be verified to exist, the typical outcome is deletion, and for the same prototypical question, two independent sources avoid deletion.
 * Does anyone disagree with this summary? That is, does anyone think that if you randomly selected a dozen single-source subjects, they'd mostly be kept, or that if you randomly selected a dozen dual-source subjects, they'd mostly be deleted?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That I agree with, as long as you are stating the "typical outcome" and not "all outcomes". --M ASEM (t) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Beware absolutism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle, but deletion is less likely than merger with another topic when it comes to sourced content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the current text:

"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

Everyone seems to agree that the last sentence imperfectly expresses the actual standard, which is at least a bit, and perhaps rather significantly, stronger -- but never absolutist (See WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc.). So the question that remains is what wording would more correctly express the standard? Here are so me options:


 * 1) Multiple sources are always preferable to single sources.
 * 2) Multiple sources are strongly recommended.
 * 3) More than one secondary source is generally necessary to demonstrate notability.
 * 4) More than one source is almost always necessary.
 * 5) If only one secondary source can be found, then the article is at higher than average risk of deletion.
 * 6) If only one secondary source can be identified, then the subject is probably (but not certainly) non-notable.

I believe that most editors could agree with all of these statements (to a first order of approximation). Can we choose one that is probably better than what we've got (or use these to assemble a new option)? (Note that I'm not aiming for perfection here, but just for something that's a step in the right direction. We've all agreed that the existing sentence could be improved upon.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I am open to other viewpoints, but I would want the chosen statement to be expanded on in order to explain why multiple sources are "necessary", "always preferable" or what ever the choice of wording is. Not everyone agress with my viewpoint, it is fair to say, but at least I have put my cards on the table by giving a rationale, as well as a preference. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it will be difficult to choose one, because these are "bald" statements that do not appear to have any rationale. My view is that Multiple sources are necessary to provide evidence that an article topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies. In particular, I think multiple sources are need to prevent content forks which are typically the subject of one or less reliable secondary source.


 * Multiple sources are preferable because with a single source, in the strict absence of original research or synthesis, the article will be a Derivative work of that source, and as such very likely a copyright infringement. From the copyright point of view, a single source is acceptable as long as we are relaxed about WP:NOR.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, looking again at the whole discussion, we haven't by any means all agreed that the current "Multiple sources are generally preferred" can be improved. I prefer the current phrasing to all of the above. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.John Z (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are agreed that "generally preferred" = "nice to have" is too wishy-washy, and in any case, it does not explain why multiple sources are generally prefered. A rationale for the correct wording is needed, a wording that takes all cases into account. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, even "always preferred" is too weak in context. "Strongly recommended", to me, is as strong as we can state this without moving to "required" --M ASEM (t) 12:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest "generally required". Where a single source is OK, I would expect there to be other "objective evidence", such as evidence of reputability of the author, evidence of exceptional use, etc.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to including a "why" statement along the lines that Gavin would like to see? Such a statement could range from fairly vague (e.g., "to comply with content policies") to rather specific (e.g., "to prevent unDUE reliance on a single source"), but do you think it would be helpful to editors to have some explanation of the relationship to other standards?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, probably not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to SmokeyJoe, would it not be better to provide guidance in this context than promote ignorance? I don't understand your thinking in this regard.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I probably would not find any objection. WhatamIdoing phrased his question in the negative.  Let remind ourselves that for clarity of discussion, all questions should be posed in the affirmative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you can reply in complete sentences: e.g., "No, I would probably not object to such a statement."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, more than one source is needed to avoid the problem of singularity of sources, namely one reliable source = one article, even though that reliable source could be used to demonstrate a related topic is notable. This would be analogous to saying that there should be a seperate football club for every football fan, which is just not practical. Lastly none of Wikipedia content polices can be used to settle editorial disputes if there is only one source. Although reliable secondary sources are a highly rated (in fact they are the best you can get), they are not infalible sources of informaton. Sometimes they can be inaccurate, or they conflict with each other, or they fail to provide the context needed by the reader to understand a topic. If a topic is not notable, then it may not possible to write an article that is factually correct, synthesis free, describes all points of view, or gives undue weight to some viewpoints but not others. The requirement for multiple sources starts with WP:BURDEN, and since notability is primarily based on this policy, it is a requirement here too. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So here's a proposal:
 * "More than one secondary source is generally required to provide verifiable evidence that an article topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies''."
 * The 'why' statement is taken from Gavin's suggestion above; the IAR link should add high-powered weaselage for those cases in which the existence of a sole, but truly stellar, source really is sufficient; and "More than one" seemed to me like a small step down in tone from "multiple", even though they're nominally equivalent.
 * Does this more or less work for everyone? Does it seem to actually be different from actual practice in typical articles?  Will this give newbies a clear idea of what they're facing in an AfD on an article of perhaps borderline notability?  Does it seem better than what we currently have, which is that multiple sources are generally (but not always) preferred?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that generally required provides the same clarity as the term necessary, but on the plus side, this form of wording is less strident, and I would commend it as being a reasonable approximation of why plurarity of sources are so important to the inclusion criteria. I could support this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that proposal have to do with notability? It looks like it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, not here. Is that a requirement in all of the other notability guidelines? And it may be saying something that Wikipedia's content policies don't even say. It sounds like a command above Wikipedia's content policies. You're now requiring something to ensure that a topic will meet requirements that content policies already require? In that sentence, who is doing the requiring? What is the proposal intended to accomplish? Your next hitchhiker (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The plurality of sources is key to notability. It is difficult to argue that a topic has been "noted" or "regognised" in accordance with WP:GNG if a topic has been the subject of just once source. This would analogous to arguing that a football club is famous if they have only one fan.
 * Which is why you can have 2 sources - one an independant secondary source and one a primary source and not be needing to worry about basing an article on 1 source and yet still not pass the notability guideline. For most articles, I'd say in such a case either merge or delete, but there are some items worthy of encyclopedic knowledge that aren't well enough covered to get even 2 seperate commentaries, yet deleting, and sometimes even merging them, would harm Wikipedia's core mission statement. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I've deliberately proposed "generally required" rather than "always required". It happens that I haven't seen an "obviously notable" subject for which two secondary (or at least two independent) sources couldn't be found, but we're trying to leave the door open for some common sense in these (obviously uncommon) situations.
 * This issue is independent of whether this statement should refer to other content policies; we could end the sentence with "generally required" if we can't agree on why editors require multiple sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most notable topics probably (or typically) have a plurality of sources. Most swans are typically white, but swans are not required to be white. You can't turn probabilities into requirements. Your next hitchhiker (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability says "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right." If I click on Films, one of the things it says is "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."

Many people have written about the movie Avatar, but someone could just point to a single source, the Golden Globes website, saying that the movie won Best Picture Drama, showing that the movie is notable. What if a movie has won a major award but there aren't a plurality of sources, maybe an older movie or a foreign film? Isn't the award enough to show that the movie is notable?

If not all of the other Notability guidelines require a plurality of sources (and I don't think they do, although I haven't read them all), I don't see how this guideline could require a plurality of sources.

You say Notability is based on a burden of evidence policy, but that paragraph in Verifiability doesn't seem very similar to Notability to me. The beginning of Notability makes a distinction between topic and content. Notability says Verifiability is a content policy, and looking there, Verifiability is listed under Content policies. Verifiability also says "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." It looks to me like Verifiability is a content policy, not a topic policy. Is there a topic policy I need to read? And if someone shows that a film won a major award, hasn't the burden of evidence been met (according to the first sentence I quoted)? Your next hitchhiker (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC) As I understand Wikipedia's content policies, they effectively define what is deemed to be encyclopedic content by a process of exclusion (perhaps some editor will put a name to this mechanism for me). What I mean by this is Wikipedia's content policies define what is not encyclopedic, rather than attempt to define content that is encyclopedic (i.e. virtually everything under the sun), plus content that might be enyclopedic in the future (unkown at present). The classic example is What Wikipedia is not, but the other content policies also attempt to draw a bright line between encyclopedic content and the type of content that is not suitable for inclusion. Although Notability is an inclusion guideline for article topics, it mirrors the exclusion criteria set out in the content policies. We know from the exlusion criteria from WP:BURDEN that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". If we turn this statement around, then by deduction, "if a topic is the subject of reliable, third party sources, then it might be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". From this, we know that reliable third party sources are a basic requirement. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR set out some of the problems of relying on primary and tertiary sources, so in order to meet their requirements Wikipedia requires secondary sources as a basis for inclusion. So for example, if there is only one source for the article topic of "white swan", then we would not have a standalone article for that topic, but if multiple sources address the article topic Swan, perhaps by discussing both white and black swans, then that would suggest the topic of swans is notable, but the specific subtopic of white swans less so, and better treated as a sub-topic. As regards major awards, my view is that they are just another source of coverage, but that to assert they can be used as a basis for inclusion by themselves is highly subjective. For example, there is a reoccuring discussion at WP:FICT about whether awards given to fictional characters can be taken as prima facie evidence of notability or not. My view is awards in gneral, and ficitonal ones in particular, are not evidence of notability unless they provide verifiable evidence of notability just like any other source. The precise philosophic validity of using awards as primae faciae evidence of notability is not clear to me, but the answer has something to do with whether is approprate to the use normative and positive statements about them in our notability guidelines that can't be backup by evidence in every case. I think this is why WhatamIdoing wording is very clever, and provides useful guidance which will benefit debates on this page for a long time to come. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Your next hitchhiker, I will answer to the points raised in your posts above.
 * It appears to me that Verifability is a content policy, but that sentence is about topics, not content in an article. Why is that sentence in a content policy? Shouldn't it be in Wikipedia's topic policy?

Verifiability mentions topics only one other time: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If I'm interpreting that correctly, that would mean that an article containing self-published material by Einstein would be acceptable, even if the article met no notability guidelines at all. From that sentence, it does not appear to me that reliable third-party sources are a basic requirement, self-published material may be okay (although this sentence seems to contradict the exclusion criteria you mentioned). What do you do when a policy contains conflicting information?

What if Charles Darwin was the sole expert on Black Swans in Australia, and the only paper that existed was self-published by him? It seems to me that an article would be okay under those circumstances, according to the Verifiability policy when it speaks of self-published material by established experts.

If a film winning an award is not an indication of notability, I'm confused as to why the notability guideline for films lists it as alternate criteria. That notability guideline also says that significant involvement by a notable person counts as evidence of notability. That would mean that any and all films with Tom Cruise in it are notable, simply due to the fact that Tom Cruise was involved. I can't find a notability guideline for fiction, but it looks like the one you linked to is a proposed policy. I know that there are all kinds of awards for fiction: the Hugo Award, the Nebula Award, the Newbery Medal, the Pulitzer Prize all come to mind. And that's just for books. Avatar is also fiction, and it seems to me to meet the notability guideline for films simply based on the fact that it won a Golden Globe. I don't see any reason why an Oscar would count as evidence of notability for a film, but a fiction award for a book would not also count.

In your opinion, if significant coverage is required to show something is notable, why does Wikipedia need more than one notability guideline? Why would any other criteria need to be proposed? If notability is as simple as significant coverage, why does Wikipedia have more than one notability guideline? It's confusing. And why is this guideline so long? Couldn't it be written in one sentence? Your next hitchhiker (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:V says: Self-published sources may be used to support article content.
 * WP:N says: But a self-published source never proves that somebody else "noticed" this subject (which is what we mean when we talk about "notability").
 * Please also remember that a subject does not have to simultaneously comply with both the GNG and the SNG standards. The above discussion is specific to the GNG, and does not change a single word at any SNG.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

late comments
"Generally" required?

Is this a joke? I just noticed the change to "generally required". I know you guys want to find compromise on your viewpoints but this only serves to perpetuate the impression that Wikipedia is a nonsensical bureaucracy with endless contradictory policies, sometimes demonstrated in the same sentence. I'm now picturing endless AfD arguments over the interpretation of the qualifier "generally."

Please somebody answer yes or no. Is more than one source required to establish notability? Don't answer "generally" because that doesn't answer the question. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * YES. Reyk  YO!  00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then change it to "required" and omit "generally."--Oakshade (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, one secondary source can be sufficient to assert notability if it is very strong source on its own, though we prefer two or more. That's why I was against the change in the first place. --M ASEM  (t) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have not moved to the stronger language because not everyone agrees that more than one secondary(!) source is always(!) required. More than one source may well always be required for a GNG claim, but a single secondary source (along with many primary sources) might occasionally be sufficient for a WP:GNG claim.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what "required" means. "Required" means it's required.  If more than one source "might occasionally be sufficient," then more than one source is not required and the specific "a single secondary source (along with many primary sources) might occasionally be sufficient" should be stated.  Right now, it doesn't mean that.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, more than one secondary source will be required. Sometimes, one secondary source will be deemed sufficient.  This adds up, in my mind, to "more than one secondary source is generally, adverb, "As a rule; usually" required."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Generally" does not mean "sometimes." As the "rule" example that generally uses, "I generally have a walk in the afternoon" does not mean "I sometimes have a walk in the afternoon."  If "Sometimes, one secondary source will be deemed sufficient" then state it.--Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Generally" does not mean "sometimes": it means "usually", as in "not sometimes, but more than 50% of the time".  "Sometimes", by contrast, is typically taken to mean less than 50% of the time.  To use the example, "I generally have a walk in the afternoon" means "I sometimes do not have a walk in the afternoon."
 * We are trying to communicate the concept of "definitely most of the time, but not quite always". "Generally" is considered an acceptable English word to communicate this concept.  If you run into a real dispute whose resolution hinges on the precise meaning of this term, then please feel free to let me know about it.  Until then, Wikipedia standing rule is "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What? If the not-a-law-"usually"-but-"required" policy leads to a real life dispute among editors, let User:WhatamIdoing know about it? (For the record, I have been involved in AfDs where there was only one in-depth secondary source of the topic so I know this does happen.) It might not have been your intent, but you've just demonstrated how nonsensical this "generally required" addition is.  We need WP:NOTE to be clear so there is no endless bickering and citations of other disqualifying rules like WP:NOTLAW (not to mention seeking a specific editor who favored making this written change).  If something is "usually" "required", then we need to state what the exceptions of "required" are.  Stating "required" but then throwing in "generally" and assuming editors will employ WP:NOTLAW and interpret "generally required" to mean "sometimes required" ironically flies in the face of WP:NOTLAW and in the end only serves as an incorrect statement of our policies. --Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually, but not always, and we should certainly be hestitant to delete where there is a good, independent, reputable, reliable secondary source. See (and by all means weigh in) Articles for deletion/Naturoid (Deleted.  I'd say that WP:NEO and WP:COI concerns were too great.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC))  for a case in progess, where I now think there is exactly one such source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but that should be made clear. With this more-than-one-secondary-source "generally required" change, it's now not clear.  I can picture a zealous deletion prone editor arguing "There might be an in-depth Washington Post article about this topic, but WP:GNG states very clearly that more than one source is 'generally required' (emphasis mine)" while those arguing against deletion will bicker with him/her their interpretation of the word "generally" until their bosses fire all of them for wasting work time on Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Few editors argue the nitty gritty of WP:N correctly at AfD, but when they do it is a good thing. If more editors read the GNG more slowly, to the point that the gather that some sources need to be all of independent, reliable and secondary, then this would be a good thing.  If an editor is quick to quote individual words out of context, it is very easy to correct them.  Also, as discussed, you have to look very hard to find an article that should be kept where after looking, you can't find a second good source.  Please bring actual examples of WP:N being misunderstood due to its lack of clarity here to WT:N.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I strongly believe we make the policies of GNG as clear as possible so there is limited argument of interpretation of its wording (believe me, I've been in endless arguments over the interpretation of "significant coverage"). Desiring editors to "get the big picture" instead of taking individual quotes out of context is nice, but in reality is not always practice so let's always ensure that even the individual quotes are as clear as possible and not open for editors' interpretations.  The example above actually wouldn't be "easy to correct" as they would have a strong case since "generally required" is in GNG.  This Afd is recent and quite specific to this "one secondary source" issue where there was a significant New York Times source on the topic and no other secondary sources.  Note that while this AfD was active, GNG did not state more than one secondary source was "generally required" and the AfD was withdrawn. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd pedantically disagree with your statement in the AfD, but would say "Keep" because the single reputable independent secondary source is exceptionally direct and deep in covering the subject, compared with the length of the wikipedia artical, and the depth of coverage of the typically accepted "secondary source" considered in many AfDs. I still think we should say that (the existance of) multiple independent secondary sources are generally required, and that All Star Cashville Prince is an exception to the general rule.  Such arguments easily fall into "depth of coverage" measures.  I don't think that such debates, however they descend, can be avoided.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An editor trying to force a yes/no on a complex question is an example of why some people argue that polls are evil. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This wasn't meant to be a poll, but a seeking of clarification when AfD participants are confronted with this question. I've been involved with AfDs where this issue came up and previously found useful guidance from WP:NOT, but now it's not clear and so far the self-contradicting answers here have not helped.--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, writing guidelines to eliminate common sense and the occasional exception is silly, and writing guidelines to prevent non-existent problems is WP:CREEPy. If the current text results in editors actually getting the right answer, then we don't need to tell them any more than what we do.  Wikipedia expects its editors to be able to make a judgment call.
 * If you've got evidence that editors are getting it wrong, then I'd like to know about that, because either we need to educate some editors (which I personally offer to help with, since I may have contributed to the existence of this problem) or to fix the text to address a real, non-hypothetical problem.
 * I do not believe that it is currently possible to provide a comprehensive list of exceptions to the standard/usual/typical requirement for multiple secondary sources. There is no strong consensus about what acceptable exceptions might be.  By contrast, there is a strong consensus only that, most of the time (but not always), AfDs won't, and probably shouldn't, accept the existence of a single secondary source as proof of notability under the GNG.  Therefore we tell the editors what we know:  If only one secondary source exists anywhere in the world, then the article will probably (but not definitely) get deleted or merged rather than kept.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you bringing a straw man into this? Nobody is asking for a "comprehensive list of exceptions to the standard/usual/typical requirement."  We're asking for clarification of what "generally required" means.  WhatamIdoing, you yourself above stated it means "Sometimes, one secondary source will be deemed sufficient" and then went on to cite the generally rule  which you yourself agreed does not mean "sometimes".  This wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" moment, but just to demonstrate how confusing the the term "generally required" is and the self-contradicting statements defining it provided by its authors.  It doesn't work.  I have been in real life AfDs where the question of one reliable secondary source has come up (as cited above, this Afd) and while this guideline's wording wasn't perfect, it didn't "require" more than one source and the AfD which was on a topic that had only one in-depth secondary source (the New York Times) was withdrawn.  Now there's going to be endless arguments of what "generally required" means.  If there is a single reliable source that provides in-depth coverage as provided in this Afd example, consensus has shown to in fact accept the existence of that single in-depth secondary source as proof of notability under GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if All Star Cashville Prince is the the subject of just one news source, then he fails WP:NTEMP, so he is strictly speaking, a marginal case. He would also fail WP:BAND, which requires "multiple non-trivial published works" despite the indepth coverage given to him by the NYT. I don't think there is any confusion about general requirement for pluraliy of sources, as it is both a requirement and is generally accepted everywhere, and musicians don't seem to be an exception. I think you would have to accept that this guideline should not confict with WP:NOT by saying that one news story = one standalone article, so this is in no way self-contradicting, but is based on Wikipedia content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Throwing WP:TEMP and WP:NOT into this is a monkey wrench and really a different topic. Those guidelines are meant to discourage articles on low profile persons who temporarily find themselves in the news through no fault of their own, ie "Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot", not an in-depth artist profile which covers a person's life as is the case with the NYT article on All Star Cashville Prince, hence that AfD was withdrawn as there was no concern that it failed WP:NOTNEWS.  This is about confusion of this added multiple sources "generally required" clause when one in-depth secondary source can demonstrate evidence of notability as it appears all users above agree.--Oakshade (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) The specific article in question is one that I would have a hard time qualifying under WP:NTEMP particularly as an event - the article doesn't appeared to be tied to any specific event save beyond release of another album.  That is, this coverage is the type that would be non-trivial, and of the sort that would be hard to consider as "news" despite it coming from a newspaper (they do more than just cover news).  Add to this that the article is from the NYTimes (a highly reliable source) and certainly not local coverage, and there's no question this is not a WP:NTEMP issue.
 * This is the problem: editors will wikilaywer. We ask they avoid it, but that's not going to stop someone. Also, it needs to be remembers that notability is a guideline with common sense principles. The GNG "requires" significant coverage in order for a topic to met it. However, significant coverage is not equivalent to multiple sources, thus we cannot say, even "generally", that the GNG requires multiple sources.  Significant coverage from multiple sources is certainly highly preferred over a single source; in the specific case here of All Star Cashville Prince I would definitely like to see at least one more source, but the nature of the single existing source establishes that the artist is notable within the realm of good-faith editing that I can presume some legwork will reveal more sources down the road.  That is the common sense we need to keep with the GNG and notability in general.  We always should more inclusive, even if it means we retain false positives for notability only to make the work better, than to apply notability too greedily and potentially omit important topics. This one artist is a clear case where the benefit of the doubt towards notability needs to be kept, and why the language of "required" is very bad to have in this guideline. --M ASEM  (t) 16:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oakshade, I never said that multiple secondary sources were "sometimes required." I said that they are "generally required" and that this means that multiple secondary sources are "sometimes not required" -- say, for instance, when the one source is a truly excellent source.
 * Additionally, I am telling you that your question about which circumstances fall into the "generally required" category and which fall into the "sometimes not required" category cannot (unfortunately) be answered, because nobody actually knows the answer. We could each make up a little fairy tale about what we think the answer should be, but nobody knows, and I'm assuming that you want a real answer rather than to be fobbed off by a pretend one.  The community's practice is not consistent or entirely predictable on this score:  We therefore cannot tell you what the community will do in any given case.
 * The community's agreement is (only) this: If someone makes a GNG claim at an AfD, it is more likely that multiple secondary sources will be required by the editors at the AfD, than that that a single secondary source will be deemed sufficient.  When, exactly, the mass of Wikipedia editors will accept a single source is not known.  We only know that it sometimes does happen.
 * WP:N is not the source of the requirement. It is not a law; it does not tell people what they should or must do.  It is describing the community's practice.  The wording was changed to more accurately reflect the community's practice, which looks more like "generally required" than "generally preferred" (which, I hope you can agree was nonsensical, because single secondary sources are never actually preferable to multiple secondary sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, you actually did state "Sometimes, one secondary source will be deemed sufficient." and then went on to cite the definition of "generally" from generally which does not resemble "sometimes."  The only reason I'm saying that is to demonstrate the confusion "generally required" leads to even amongst those who support that wording.  We do seem to be settled on Father Goose's working of "generally expected."  As he said, if we ignore a "requirement," then it's not a requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times now, sometimes (occasionally, not very often, in certain circumstances, but not always: think "10% of the time"), a single secondary source will be accepted.  Generally (usually, as a rule, most of the time, frequently, normally:  think "90% of the time"), a single secondary source will not be accepted.
 * "Generally" and "sometimes" are not synonyms: they are antonyms (opposites).  To say that something is generally required is to simultaneously say that it is sometimes not required.  If we meant that something was always required, then we would have said that it was always required, or that AfDs absolutely never accepted a single secondary source.  We did not choose such absolutist language, however, because it's not true:  AfDs sometimes make astonishingly inclusive choices despite remarkably poor sources.
 * Fundamentally, we're trying to give editors fair warning about what they can expect in an AfD. We are not trying to tell them what they must do.  This page cannot pretend that consistent and easily predictable rules exist when the community clearly does not follow hard-and-fast rules in actual practice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that sometimes one secondary source should ever be sufficient. I think it should be far less than "sometimes", as a percentage of all wikipedia articles, let alone all AfD'ed articles.  I also think that sufficient conveys too strong an approval.  Rarely will one source be acceptable, for now, with an assumption that in time more secondary sources will arise, if you'll allow for my eventualism.  I am content with Father Goose's "generally expected".  It works.  Preferred didn't, because in my world, someones preferences are a nice goal, but implicitly are not a standard I have to seriously worry about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Required", notability, and the nature of Wikipedia
"Required" is a word that implies that action is necessary if the requirements are not met. It is a word that has a lot of weight behind it.

If Wikipedia were not a community-wide wiki but instead a online encyclopedia being maintained by a for-profit company without the the ideals of a wiki-community, then I could argue that using "required" would be appropriate, as the company is likely setting minimum standards for their product to make it success. There is reason that they would need to take action if a topic failed to meet their required metrics for notability, for example, in order to maintain some level of professionalism.

But Wikipedia is far from a for-profit company. WP is community edited, meaning there's no specific goals in mind beyond those of the mission statement set forth by the Foundation. To that end, there are only a handful of places on WP where "required" should even be used, and these only to meet with specific input by the Foundation on how they want the work to be run. Two of these are how we deal with biographies of living persons, and how we deal with non-free content. Both of these "require" near-immediate action to be done should something fail to be met the requirements (in the case of both, eventual deletion of the infringing content). Outside of these few areas, it's community-determined standards. And to that end, there is nothing "required" by these standards because consensus drives our policy and guidelines, not the other way around. The community may often desire that minimum standards be present in all articles, and in some cases (namely what's outlined at WP:CSD) have outlined where action should be taken should these not be appropriately met, but even CSD cases are a matter of checks and balances: they are tagged by one editor, reviewed by an admin, and always subject to deletion review. Here is the important point: outside of the select cases like BLP and NFC, there is no allowance for an editor to delete an article on their own that otherwise fails to meet community-wide standards. If we had "requirements", this would not be the case - if an article failed a requirement, we would need to take immediate action on it and deal with it.

Instead, what we need to understand is that most administrative-type actions (eg deletion) on articles are always judgment-based, based on how well or poorly an article meets current community standards. And because they are judgment-based, there may be a variety of opinions on exactly where that falls, which is why most of administrative actions are done on the tail end of a discussion period to survey the judgment calls (such as at AFD). In most cases, that judgment process begins even before discussion: the fact an article may be viewed by many and considered to otherwise pass our policies and guidelines - meaning no action is done on it - is an affirmation that that judgment is affirming that article meets policies. AFD is a good example of the community practice at work (most of the time, lets ignore those that abuse the process in being WP:POINTy) - someone finds an article they think fails a guideline and calls for its deletion. There is discussion now that it has been brought to light, and then some action is determined.

What does this mean towards notability and the issue at hand, that being if multiple sources are "required"? No, it is not the case that they are required. Instead, it is a judgment call if the sources present are sufficient to assure notability. It is the case that the more sources you have, the more likely that no one will question its notability, and probably also more true than not that only one source is likely to bring more scrutiny to the article. But it cannot be called a "requirement" since there is no direct administrative action that can be done on an article failing to show notability (someone has to initiate the process that says "I question this article's notability" before an admin can lift a finger).

The GNG says notability is conferred by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and we are trying to better outline that "significant coverage" implies "multiple sources". I would argue the right language is something along the lines that "Coverage in multiple non-trivial sources are generally sufficient to confer significant coverage." as this accuracy reflects how all of our processes work. If you have a lot of sources in an article, most people will give it a width berth for notability on a first glance, though more detailed evaluation may reveal that some of the sources are trivial or bogus, at which point we question its notability. "Multiple sources for significant coverage" is certainly a community standard, but it is not a requirement, which is why need to avoid that language at all costs.

Again, I point out that WP's policies and guidelines, save for a few like BLP and NFC, are written as descriptive measures of WP's practices, not prescriptive. "Required" is not used in even most of our core policies, instead relying on "should"-type language. Being a guideline, we cannot be more prescriptive than our policies, and that's even more reason to avoid strong language. We should assert what the community standards are, but the ultimate decision for any article if it meets these will be determined by the community, not by a single point of evaluation. --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Likeswise WP:OR says that "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The requirement for plurality of source or significant coverage is neither novel nor unprecented; rather this guideline is simply reflecting those requirements of existing content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Masem' argument that guidelines should not be perscriptive is spurious. Whilst Wikipedia content polices are perscriptive in the way they exclude certain types of content (e.g. WP:V excludes topics without reliable, third party sources), notability is perscriptive too whenever it reflects content policy directly. So, for a topic not be excluded, it is required to be the subject of reliable, third party sources, otherwise it could be merged or deleted - see this earlier post for details. Where this guideline is not perscriptive is where it offers guidance that does not reflect content policy, such as independent sources.
 * You misinterpret the policies and guidelines to be stronger than they are. WP:V never states a requirement for third party sources. It does say "if there are no third-person sources for a topic, WP should not have an article on it."  Again, this points to a descriptive statement and implies that if you encounter an article with no sources, there is no immediate administrative action that can be done, though you're certain free to tag as CSD/PROD/AFD or with a cleanup tag as appropriate. (If this was meant to be prescriptive, the word would have been "must not")  Now, WP:V does have one bit of prescriptive advice, and that is the line about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources", which itself is based on the BLP policy, though applied to all topics, and there is a remedy here: if you see something that is extraordinary but isn't sourced, you can delete that statement (or source it yourself if possible).  That is how something that is "required" works - there is something you can immediately do to take action to correct the failure of requirement.  Similarly OR is talking about just reliable sources, but the way it is written does not infer anything about plurality of sources, as it is a "in general" statement.
 * It needs to be understood that notability is very subjective, and the point we should be describing here is that an article with multiple sources to should significant coverage is exponentially less likely to be considered for deletion as one with one or none. Multiple sources are not a requirement because there's nothing that needs to be immediately done (unlike the case of NFC or BLP) to correct the issue - WP is not harmed in any legal/monetary fashion by the existence of articles lacking multiple sources in their demonstration of notability. We want to encourage editors to clearly show notability and include as many secondary sources to back this up, but that's a "should" not a "must". That's why we need to avoid that language, otherwise you've just made WP:N stronger than WP:V or WP:OR, and that is never appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst notability is a subjective inclusion criteria, it is far less subjective than the only alternative, subjective importance which is based on personal opinion alone. This guideline reflects this, by building on the requirements of made by WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for significant coverage from reliable sources. It is disingenious to say that this is not a requirements when policy says that it is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, there are no requirements that we're building on from WP:V, OR, or the like. We're building on them because they are established practices and it would be counterproductive to frame something that is completely out of line with those. But again, and importantly, there is no language that requires an article to have either 1) multiple sources 2) third-party sources or 3) secondary sources.  All three are strongly preferred and/or encouraged and certainly not something to deny. But again, I stress this: if these were required there would be immediate action necessary to correct those failures. There isn't any such actions; the best one can do is tag them for cleanup or recommend for deletion, but even an admin cannot outright delete such articles without discussion before that point. In other words, we turn to community subjective opinion to determine this.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are requirements, Masem, that is what policy is all about. Multiple sources are normally required by Wikipedia's content policies in general, and for living persons in particular. The stronger the claims made, the greater the requirement, but this not the same as saying "Action this day", it is statement that there are standards that all users should normally follow. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are standards that should normally be followed, which means they are not requirements, despite people treating them like they are. There's a reason WP is not a bureaucracy and ultimately, WP:IAR is one of the key pieces of advice - it is common sense application of policy and guideline that make them work, not flat-out enforcement. Policy and guides are descriptive of practice, not prescriptive of it. --M ASEM  (t) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stick my statement:


 * Multiple sources are normally required by Wikipedia's content policies in general, and for living persons in particular. The stronger the claims made in an article, the greater the requirement for reliable sources.


 * I agree that policy is not statute, but policy does set the standards/requirements in this context. It is a false or misleading guideance to say that compliance iwth content policy is "nice to have", "prefered" or "strongly encouraged" when in fact it is a requirement that every editor is expected to meet. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a requirement we expect editors to follow these. This is a volunteer project.  Editors are free to do what they want. We do not take any action against editors that don't edit in these fashions save when their editing actions become aggressive (in the form of vandalism or hostile editing).  You're trying to establish objectivity on WP where there is none. Everyone on WP is a subjective measure, save for a limited set of issues passed down from the people that run the playground. We need something like policy and guideline to describe what the norm should be but we cannot hold editors or content against that except when there is potential harm to the work.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The requirements for verfiablity of content, neutral point of view and no original research are undeniable - they aren't "nice to have", "prefered" or "strongly encouraged". This guideline reflects these and other polices: if an article topic fails WP:N, then it is going to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies and vice versa. Failing this guideline won't necessarily mean that that an article will be deleted since it is not possible prove a topic is will never be notable. However, evidence of notability is the only defense against deletion, and from that perspective, plurality of sources is a requirement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, you're missing the most important point: This page is not doing the requiring:  The editors at AfD are imposing the requirement.
 * And, just in case no one's wandered past any AfDs recently, the editors actually are -- generally, but not always -- requiring evidence that multiple non-primary sources actually exist, and deleting or merging away articles that don't meet this standard.
 * Multiple sources are actually required to survive an AfD, and multiple sources would still be required even if this entire page were deleted.
 * Don't think of this statement as "WP:N declares that all editors are required to !vote delete if multiple secondary sources don't exist". This statement means something much closer to, "Hey -- fair warning:  If there's only one non-primary source in the world, you're almost certainly going to lose that article at AfD!"  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument that this inclusion guideline is seperate from the deletion process still holds good. The reality in deletion discussions is that the editorial discretion rules supreme, rather than the strict application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Weather reports
Which content policy would a weather report for Bangor, Maine, from July 2, 1932, fail? Powers T 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Without having read it, I could not hazard an opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what the content is; it's an example. Say it was sunny and 85 degrees with 60% humidity.  Say it was well recorded in contemporary sources of high reliability.  In fact, say local sources commented on it as being the warmest temperature of that year up to that date, although it was otherwise unremarkable.  Should an encyclopedia have an article on that day's weather?  My contention is that it violates WP:N but not any of our other content policies.  Powers T 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is the custom in the USA, but weather records in the UK are a matter of record only. Without significant coverage in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis, it would be hard to tell if the weather in on a particular day would warrant its own standalone article unless it was the subject of coverage that would indicate it was notable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. But you said anything that fails WP:N would also necessarily fail one of our other content policies.  Which ones would such a weather report fail?  Powers T 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your pick. Probably WP:NOT or WP:NOT. As you know, the weather report is featured in newspapers every day as matter of routine, while the weather statistics for one or more locations covering a multitude of measures (humidity, temperature, air preasure, cloud cover et al) over an arbitray period of time (hours, days, weeks) is raw data that provides no context for the reader. What is needed is significant coverage from secondary sources that is evidence of notability to provide context. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But WP:NOT specifically references notability, as do you in your last sentence. If that's all you meant by "if an article topic fails WP:N, then it is going to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies and vice versa", that an article that fails WP:N also fails content policies that specifically reference WP:N, then your statement was a tautology and I don't see its relevance.  Powers T 13:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy such as WP:NOT might include a reference to guidelines such as WP:N, but it is not based upon it, so it is not a tautology. WP:NOT and WP:NOT are both axiomatic facets of policy that relflect the community's consensus view about what is not encyclopedic content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, weather reports would be excluded from Wikipedia per WP:ROUTINE. The only place in which I can see the permissibility of weather reports is in an article is in one about a weather event, when the weather leading up to or during the storm was a factor. Sebwite (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Conveniently for my argument, WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline. =)  Powers T 13:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to LtPowers, since notability is based upon Wikipedia's content policy, I am not sure what point you are trying to illustrate here. If there is one, could you also provide an example article to throw more light on this matter? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My only point is to take issue with your statement: "if an article topic fails WP:N, then it is going to fail one or more of Wikipedia's content policies and vice versa." That statement implies that WP:N is unnecessary and redundant with our other content policies.  I contend that it is not, and that it is reliable, factual, verifiable, but non-notable information like the above that proves that it is not.  Powers T 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Long ago I worked out that WP:N is in fact redundant with pre-existing written policy. However, WP:N is useful for distilling from those policies the criteria for when an entire article should best be deleted.  In this respect, WP:N is more enforceable than WP:NOR and WP:V.  WP:N contains the deletion-enforceable elements of WP:NOR and WP:V.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except my example article, the old weather report, fails neither NOR nor V. Powers T 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I have not seen the article (was there a perfect storm that day?), I expect that it will fail WP:NOR because the weather report is a primary source (repetition of facts without commentary). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used w/o violating NOR as long as advanced synthesis is not used. --M ASEM (t) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course primary sources can be used w/o violating NOR/anything. Primary sources are good.  They build reliable content.  The complete absence of secondary sources is a problem, because then no source actually attributes meaning to anything.  The weird question posed here seems to imply nothing but a weather report for sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Which content policy would an old weather report fail?
 * Well, how is it being used? An article on a weather report is likely to fail WP:N.  More likely, a weather report will be used to support a fact from a larger story, and in this case, it needs to be a reliable source.  Were weather reports reliable then?  WP:NOT#STATS is likely to prevent you from repeating from lots of weather reports.  But to me, most fundamentally, WP:PSTS is the governing policy for content, with a weather report being most definitely a primary source, which means that as a rule you can only use it if it is itself used (perhaps an implied use) by a secondary source.  If others have written about it, we write about it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I've been saying. WP:N is fundamental.  Powers T 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It also fails WP:NOT, and that is policy, so I am not understanding what point LtPowers is trying to make.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the key here is that we don't have an explicit policy, but clearly an old, routine weather report would be failing the first of the 5 pillars, failing to show discrimination for included information. Unfortunately, and the problem we always come around with with things like routine news reports and the like, is that we have no easily codified statement that content should be indiscriminate as well (WP:N covers the topic of an article, but not its content). If you think about it this way, the closest we get is either WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIA, but neither really consider that case well.  But it is clearly something we do not wish to include even as part of a larger topic.  Maybe that points to something that needs to be stated better? --M ASEM  (t) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)