Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 51

Directly
Just a note about SmokeyJoe's removal of the word "directly": I don't object to the change, but the reason it was there is because notability is actually used (voluntarily) to limit the content of some lists, i.e., the lists that restrict entries to either articles that already exist, or to existing blue links and plausibly red-linked entries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The “directly” didn’t belong in that sentence. “Not directly” is loose and poorly defined.  “WP:N does not directly limit the content of a list” implies that WP:N does limit the contents of a list indirectly, and it begs the question of how exactly it does.  Technically, we hold that it doesn’t, and therefore the statement was false.
 * If there is a simple statement that can be made to positively connect WP:N and list content, then it belongs in the section Notability. That section currently reads OK with respect to lists, but with respect to notability of list content, it talks obliquely and wiki-links to another page with weak guidance and with further wiki-links leading to yet more wiki-links  to yet more weak guidance.  Having read some of these pages, I am not sure which one should be considered the authoritative source of guidance on content in a standalone list.  Maybe not everything has to be written down.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondary v. independent v. third-party
Hi, folks. First, allow me to preface: I understand that the following is not a new issue. However, I am wondering if someone can point me to a more-or-less unambiguous consensus about the use of the terms secondary, independent, and third-party in this guideline and/or across the project namespace. These terms, despite their very different meanings, are perpetually used as synonyms—not only in the editorial vernacular but in this very guideline. It has created some unnecessary obfuscations, in which new editors are misinformed (see T:N, where the term 'secondary' is incorrectly substituted for the correct 'independent') and driven away from the project (I recently spoke with a Ph.D. student who was told he needed 'secondary' sources in his new article; when he then literally provided secondary sources, he was derided for them not being 'secondary enough', where the derider was (wrongly) using the term 'secondary' for 'independent'). The terms are not as difficult as imagined: "(1) Independent means the source has no stake in the topic. (2) Third-party means the source is disassociated with the topic. (3) Secondary means the source is about other sources. (4) Primary means the source is an original source."

Thankfully, Party and person exists to expand on these meanings. Note, especially, the contrast between the meaning of secondary and all of the others; these formulations, while slightly simplified, are consistent with scholarly practice (I received bemused looks when I told one scholar/professor that Wikipedia prizes secondary sources over primary ones; in scholarship, the opposite is true). I wonder if we are willing to crystallize these terms and their associated policies/guidelines to make things easier on all of us. Presently, I am challenged by the inconsistent logic of WP:N, which, in the first paragraph, mandates 'third-party' sources, in the first sentence of WP:GNG, mandates 'independent' sources, then, in the third clause of WP:GNG, mandates 'secondary' sources. Thanks for reading. NTox · talk 05:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First, the axes of sources is spelled out most officially at WP:NOR.
 * Second, be aware that WP:N and WP:GNG are two different things. GNG is one and the most common way to meet notability.  Existing in secondary sources - ones that provide transformation evaluation of other sources instead of just repeating them - are what we value on WP. Remember that we're not going for scholarly merit but verifyable and accuracy as a tertiary source ourselves - we want to be a research, but not an end-all, tool. --M ASEM  (t) 06:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. I am aware of the PST formulations of WP:NOR, but at the heart of my comments is the question about whether or not there has been an attempt to standardize the use of the above terms specifically in the context of the notability guidelines. Moreover, while I no doubt agree that secondary sources are important for the encyclopedia—and that the purpose of Wikipedia is different from scholarship—the issue, again, is notability. i.e., Does the existence of secondary sources make a topic more notable? I would argue no, and say that the better requisite is independence. One could, if they wanted, publish dozens of meta-analyses of their own work, which would constitute secondary sources, but notability? NTox · talk 06:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For us, secondary sources are core for most topics to presume they are notable. Lots of things are published about in primary sources, but only secondary sources that expand on the bare facts and provide context, analysis, and new conclusions show that a topic has received more than just republishing. It basically moves us to being able to write a good encyclopedic article that is free of original research and yet still provides an analysis of why the topic is of importance to the reader. And be aware, WP:N required independent *and* secondary sources, so no, you can't create your own meta-analysis of your own work , since that's not independent or even third-party. --M ASEM  (t) 12:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. If it's the case that notability requires both independent and secondary sources, I would suggest some rewrites to make this more clear. That particular interpretation, while perhaps accurate, is not widely shared. I remain skeptical, however, that it indeed is the case: (If the Ind-Sec duality was accurate, I have doubts that an incorrect meaning—without the independent bit—would have lasted in the high-profile T:N for nearly 3.5 years ). To me, this issue appears to be an effect of divergent understandings and the absence of consensus about WP:N. And as I alluded, it's not a trifle semantic argument; new editors are being driven away because of it, and it's no doubt implicating the thousands of deletion processes, as well as WP:AfC, tagging practice, etc. NTox · talk 16:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what is meant. You can pretty much review most AFD discussions where sources are discussed to see how they are evaluated. There's more emphasis on the secondary aspect than independent though some Independence is necessary.  Also, remember this is only for notability; once you've shown a topic notable, the other sources can be those that meet WP:V, which can include primary and dependent sources. --M ASEM  (t) 16:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * On the English Wikipedia, independent and third-party are used interchangeably. It's not technically correct, but that's how it is.
 * Secondary was seriously misunderstood until a couple of years ago, and we still see occasionally people using it as a synonym for independent. (That's why WP:Party and person's alternate title is WP:Secondary does not mean independent.)  There are still vestiges of this error (see Template:Primary sources for one), but we're making progress, and the main sourcing policies have been corrected.
 * You might like to read WP:USEPRIMARY. I'm also working on WP:USESPS, dealing with identifying self-published sources (another problem we've had for a long while, with people seriously giving definitions of self-published sources like "any source that doesn't have very many lawyers behind it").  Eventually, I hope to to merge WP:Third-party sources and WP:Independent sources into one page that explains the difference between the two terms and the fact that either quality is usually enough to count for our purposes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be a bit careful stating "'third-party' and 'independent' are interchangable". For WP:V, possibly. For WP:N, no. Third-parties may be dependent (read: have some kind of gain or benefit for promoting the topic), and thus it is in their interest to publish information regarding that topic, even if it is as neutral as possible in terms of bias.  If they're the only ones publishing this information, that doesn't make the topic notable, but if they are joined by other independent third-parties in publishing information, that information can certainly be used to flesh out the topic's article. --M ASEM  (t) 16:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in. I am happy to hear that you are working on fixing some of this. In terms of WP:N, are you suggesting that independent sources are the requisite for notability? That's how I have thought it should be, but what do you make of Masem's comments, and the directive in WP:GNG: "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."? NTox · talk 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That line pertains specifically to the GNG part of N; there are other ways to presume notability outside of the GNG that may not require secondary sources, but should at least be independent to avoid self-promotion. --M ASEM (t) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts
Can people here quit with the unconsidered, bitey reverts? Can you not work more constructively? The wording I proposed may not have been quite right, but surely you can see how it's attempting to improve the current version, so can you not try putting it right instead of just undoing? The point is, obviously, that while it is TRUE that no sources means no article, the "standard of notability" we apply is actually STRONGER than that - we want significant coverage. The fact that this point is missing from the opening paragraph of the page is surely an undesirable omission. Victor Yus (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD particularly on policy and guideline pages. You should be discussing the changes you feel you want here and gain consensus after you were reverted once.  What changes you were making were destressing the need of secondary sources (which is how we distinguish from WP:V requirements of third-party sources), and given how tricky this guideline is across WP, random changes like that need discussion before adding. --M ASEM  (t) 14:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you just needed to change my "third-party" to "secondary", right, and not revert the whole thing? Anyway, see next section. Victor Yus (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's a lot more subtleties than just that. This is a guideline that has been met with a lot of contention (though has consensus) over the years, and the language is carefully chosen to match the various concerns that have come up over time. --M ASEM  (t) 15:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a joke, right? If the language in this guideline has been carefully chosen, then the people who did the choosing should be deported to a land far away... OK, there are good bits and bad bits. But because the bad bits are so prominent and disrupt the whole logical structure of the page, the result is incomprehensible gobbledegook. Victor Yus (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Masem, except for the use of "carefully", and that I would want to point out that the design is like that of a camel.
 * Not really; a camel is ideally suited to its purpose, while this guideline is not. It DOES NOT GUIDE. Same with nearly all Wikipedia guidelines (for reasons see below). Victor Yus (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. The purpose has been suited to the camel, not the camel to the purpose.  You have the causation backwards.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, think evolutionary little steps, neither of us is really right. But camels aren't the topic here. Victor Yus (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

General remarks
Also, like with most Wikipedia guidelines, this page as a whole is more likely to confuse than guide. What's wrong with this page is that it never really gets round to defining its terms. We should have a clear statement of what we mean by "notable" (and its relationship with the concept of being suitable for a separate article), not getting diverted too soon by secondary topics like verifiability, and explain clearly what the relation is between the general criterion for notability and the secondary criteria that can be found on other WP:Notability (whatever) pages. Typical sentence that I don't believe anyone can possibly understand: "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." Huh??? Victor Yus (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for the lede either. What I think you are asking for is to move the GNG to the top? Or to make it bigger?  Or say more clearly that Wikipedia-Notability is different, a higher threshold, than dictionary definitions of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think worthy of notice has any place in notability guidelines, unless to explain the contrast in meaning, between here and the dictionary meanings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue is that we are defining two things about notability here. First is the general concept that once a topic is presumed notable, we generally allow for a stand-alone article on it. (the core of WP:N). The second aspect is that meeting the GNG is one way of presuming a topic is notable (the other ways being the subject specific notability guidelines). The GNG requirements do not apply to WP:N as a whole.  The suggestion to move the GNG to its own page has been offered before, but at the same time, understanding that the GNG is the most default way of showing a topic notable, and how that leads to the selection of criteria in the subject specific guidelines, is integral to the core of WP:N.
 * Also, remember that WP:N revolves on the idea of "presumed notability". There is no technical measure of notability that we as Wikipedians or that external sources can provide. To that end, the presumption of notability can only be brought forth by consensus and evidence in sources to show that there's likelihood that something is notable - and ergo that's why that sentence you question is there.  This is to emphasis that notability is not a fixed quantity.  Our standards for notability do change and so topics once presumed notable by us may no longer be because they fall below our new threshold.  There is a lot of tricky wording around the presumed notability, but it necessary to convey how that applies to consensus here.  (This is also why we talk "worthy of notice" here, to reply to SmokeyJoe's comment above - we're talking about a grey line threshold that is not in line with the english definition of the word and thus need to be clear about that) --M ASEM  (t) 15:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we talk "worthy of notice"? I didn't follow that bit. And "worthy of notice" by whom? [signed for Smokey Joe]
 * (edit conflict) So what in the end ~is the definition of "notable"? (As opposed to "presumed notable"?) Victor Yus (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "by whom" is "the Wikipedia community". The "worthy of notice" is to reflect the English language concept of notability differentiating it from the application of WP's version of "notability".  WP's version of "notability" is more related to "the quality of a topic to merit a stand-alone article" than to the concept of "worthy of notice", as its come to be taken.  (And yes, we've been here before about the difference between the English meaning and WP's meaning, and trying to rename this to something away from "notability", but it always comes back to the status quo.) --M ASEM  (t) 15:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So let's see if I'm right: "notable" in Wiki jargon means "meriting an article" (though sometimes for presentational purposes there might be a decision to combine more than one notable topic in one article), and "presumed notable" means notable according to the latest consensus. And we know from experience that IF there is consensus that EITHER (a) it satisfies the GNG (which requires significant coverage in secondary sources); OR (b) it satisfies (verifiably according to third-party sources) any one of the special criteria listed on the various notability pages, THEN we can confidently predict that there will also be consensus that it is notable, i.e. that it will be presumed notable. Please correct anything wrong with that line of reasoning. Victor Yus (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would probably agree with that; I would only add to your last step that other policies and guidelines may not allow an article that otherwise reaches the "presumed notability" stage (typically falling out of WP:NOT). Also to note: GNG requires significant coverage in independent secondary sources, as to avoid self-promotion by larger media organizations.
 * Also, it would better to note that if a topic is presumed notable, it can but is not required to have its own article. Editorial decisions to merge two or more notable topics into one are acceptable. --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said that last bit (at the beginning; maybe my first sentence should have gone at the end). So what's the difference between an independent secondary source and a third-party source? Victor Yus (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that in the thought process of notability, the aspect of merging multiple notable topics logically comes after the notability factors have been determined. It's better to think of that case as exceptional when looking at the core process of determining notability. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference between third-party and independent sources is explained at Party and person.
 * Whether a source is primary or secondary has absolutely nothing to do with whether the source is third-party or independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) OK, good, we're on the same wavelength about all that. Now, what about these sources? Third-party means independent, right? So the key difference for you between V and N in that regard is that V can sometimes use independent primary sources, while for N they must be independent and secondary, is that right? Or should it be the other way round? I see in both the nutshell and in the opening paragraph that you restored, that the references here are in fact to independent and third-party sources - no mention of secondary sources, even though your objection to my edits was that I was downplaying the secondary thing. I'm all confused now. Victor Yus (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Third-party means independent, right? 
 * No, it doesn't. The English Wikipedia commonly uses the terms interchangeably, but they do not have the same meaning.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG, we are on the English Wikipedia now, aren't we? The same with "notable" - it doesn't mean here what it means in English, but when we speak here we use it in its Wikipedia sense, don't we? Victor Yus (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic rants
(Copied from above) I think I've now worked out the reason for this (since it's happened in more places than here) - people like to feel they control these pages, so when a newcomer comes along and makes an improvement, the oldcomers just revert, don't think about what the other person is trying to do or consider that they might even be right. So everyone apart from the controllers (who apparently don't much care about the quality of the guidance) eventually gets frustrated and goes away, and the page is left with all its faults intact. But that's a general observation. Victor Yus (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Victor, I'd like to address your claim of WP:OWNership at the beginning of this section. I've seen you attempt to change multiple advice pages now.  Your efforts have been steadily opposed in every case that I've seen.  You claim here that the opposition is entirely because people are unfairly opposing improvements.
 * You know what? I think people oppose your changes because you're no good at writing advice pages.  Writing policy is much harder than most people think it is.  I think people oppose your changes because, with just three and a half month's of very limited experience at the English Wikipedia, you don't actually understand what these pages need to do.  I think it's because, with less than 1.5% of the edits that I've made, you actually know less about the English Wikipedia's workings than I do.
 * Blaming all of these experienced policy wonks for opposing your misguided changes is like a man always blaming his girlfriends for his failure to get married, without ever once wondering whether he might be less than perfect himself. The common denominator in all of these failed editing efforts is you:  a seriously inexperienced person rushing in to change a page that you don't even understand.  I think that you need to completely stop editing advice pages directly.  If you have ideas about improving them, then suggest changes on the talk page, and wait a week or so to see whether other people like them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, and someone called me vitriolic the other day. I'm not even going to answer that diatribe, but am putting it in a separate section since it clearly doesn't advance discussion on this page. Victor Yus (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How to word it so people know notable interviews count towards notability?

 * Being interviewed in a reliable source also indicates notability, provided it is about the person or something notable they have accomplished(published a book, been in a film, etc). Being interviewed in a major newspaper about seeing a crime or accident, doesn't count.

This edit was reverted. How would it best be worded instead?  D r e a m Focus  16:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I first had moved it down in the "Sources" block (to describe acceptable sources per the existing footnote) and worded it a bit cleaner:
 * Personal interviews conducted and published by reliable sources also indicate notability, provided the interview is about the person or something notable they have accomplished (published a book, been in a film, etc). Interviews with eyewitnesses or bystanders, even if published by a major newspaper, does not confer notability to the interviewee.
 * I reverted myself (there was no EC warning from Blueboar's revert, so I removed it to avoid contention). --M ASEM (t) 16:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to putting Masem's bit in? If not, I say just go for it.   D r e a m Focus  22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we can afford to wait more than a couple of hours before making any changes. There's no deadline here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work for two reasons, the word "indicate" and the word "confer". The example has nothing to do with "confer" which means bestow.  Possibly replace both words with "contribute to", but it needs more review first.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I object. Why should we treat interviews different from any other source?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interviews involve two parties: obviously the interviewee, a "primary" source for all practical purposes, but then the interviewer. Now, yes, they are just asking questions, but a good interviewer guides the discussion to learn more, going "off script" or the like based on the answers. Ergo, this aspect leads to some aspects of an interview being a secondary source since the interviewer is analyzing on the fly.  It is definitely not a truism to say that all interviews are primary sources for the person that is being interviewed. --M ASEM  (t) 22:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Interviews
WP:PSTS has listed "interviews" as a primary source for a long time. This is probably true for most of what we call "an interview", but not in every case. For example, if you interview a professor of history on the radio, and you ask a question like "So, tell me the causes of the biggest war of the 19th century", then that reply is (or could be) a secondary source for information about the war.

I'm not convinced that a question about the subject ("So, professor, tell me about your career") could be a secondary source, however, and consequently I'm not convinced that the primary-secondary distinction actually matters for notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it some minor small town paper asking the professor that? Or was this a major newspaper?  Did the professor get any major science awards, patent something that saved lives, or something notable enough to be interviewed for?  And how much detail was it?  Tossing out one generic question and getting just a a few sentences probably won't do it.   D r e a m Focus  22:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the first case, I don't think the nature of the source matters at all, because it doesn't provide any information about the person being interviewed. (I assume that we're trying to demonstrate notability for my professor, not for the 19th century war.)
 * In the second case, the interview is still a primary source for the professor. (That's just a fact of life; we can't change that.)  The question is whether it's a "big enough" primary source to justify an exemption from the GNG's secondaries-required notion.
 * Do you envision this interview (or a couple of them together) being sufficient (no other sources/no secondary sources needed), or merely contributory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Famous people get interviewed all the time. That has always counted towards notability, but sometimes people question it.  Need to change the wording somewhere to eliminate any doubt to prevent any unnecessary conflicts in AFDs.   D r e a m Focus  22:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a sort of putting the cart before the horse issue - if you're being interviewed by a major reliable source, it is likely that you have meritted something to make that interview worthwhile; not the other way around. That said, if the interview is being added in addition to one of the BIO criteria (such as winning an award), that may be considered a contribution towards notability. --M ASEM (t) 22:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What if you get interviewed in detail a reliable source for a web comic you created? Also, sometimes people claim that bestselling writers aren't notable even if their books are.  If they get interviewed they claim it was mostly about the book not them, so it doesn't count towards them.  We need to clarify things.  If a major newspaper or magazine flies out to interview you for a bestselling novel you wrote, then you are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably an indication of the web comic's notability. And no, if you write - as your first work - a best-selling novel and you get interviewed about how you wrote the novel, the book's fame or the interview do not lend to you, the author's, notability. --M ASEM  (t) 22:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this goes back to the distinction between determining the likeihood of notability vs. establishing actual notability. Being interviewed by a major news outlet is a good indication that the interviewee is likely to be notable... but it does not establish that the interviewee actually is notable. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is primarily determined by reliable sources telling us they are notable. Whether they write up an article about someone, or interview them in detail, same thing.   D r e a m Focus  01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a huge difference. The key being what is the focus of the interview?  For example, I follow a lot of media on the show Fringe, and they frequently frequently talk to the main actors -- about the show. None of those interviews would give any notability to the actors, although as a point, the actors were notable before the show itself.  The interviews may, however, give notability to the characters they play since that's usually what the interviews go in depth about.  Again, the act of being interviewed is not what qualifies a person to be notable. It is what the ore of the discussion is that likely will lead to that. --M ASEM  (t) 02:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intuitively, I disagree with that. If a magazine makes the decision to interview a specific person (I don't mean just random members of the public or chance eyewitnesses to events), then the magazine is showing that person the same kind of "attention" as it would be if it had decided to write an article about them. For purposes of notability, it doesn't matter that the statements made during the interview might be one-sided. That would matter for verifiability, since we shouldn't say "Jack Luvvy is the best actor in the business" on the basis of his having said so himself in an interview (we might say instead "Jack Luvvy has claimed to be..."). But for notability, all we care about is that that reliable source has decided that that actor is deserving of their attention. Victor Yus (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now I've read it more carefully, I in fact largely agree with what Masem. Interviewing some actor about a play he's in is a bit like interviewing some member of the public about a car crash they've witnessed.  Victor Yus (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dream, can you answer my question? Imagine that the only reliable sources are two interviews.  Let's say that Terry Gross and Barbara Walters have interviewed the person, and that the interviews are actually about the person ("Professor, please tell the audience about yourself"), rather than about something else ("Professor, please tell the audience about this 19th century war").
 * Do you think that these two sources would be enough? Or do you think that these two sources would be helpful, but that you would need some other clearly secondary source in addition?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense if Barbara Walters interviewed someone about themselves, they are notable. Why would you need anything else if you had two interviews like that?   D r e a m Focus  20:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This type of source, because of its nature, really only tells you what the interviewee says about himself. Even a "hardball" question won't provide you with much information about criticisms or alternative views.  Is that what you'd want to base an entire article on?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The subjects of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles won't, I think, have been subject to much significant criticism or view-expression one way or the other. But simply presenting readers with basic factual information about someone can still be very useful. Such information can even come from the subject's own website, if there's no reason to suspect that it's a lie. So it might be that the notability is provided by a source such as interviews, while the verifiability for most of the information in the article (at least while it's still at the stub stage) might come from a different source (even if that source is no use for establishing notability). For the same reason, I find it a little illogical (though quite harmless) when people tell you to "add references to the article so as to establish notability". It should be enough that we (the editors who are discussing the feasibility of the article) are aware of the sources that establish notability. It might happen that many of those sources are not in fact needed as references for any of the facts stated in the article, so there should be no absolute need to add them to the article in such quantity as is needed for notability. Victor Yus (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nutshell of the sports notability page
I thought the prevailing logic on this page was crazy, but it's not a patch on what I'm encountering at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). The prevailing view everywhere seems to be that for a presumption of notability, the subject should satisfy either the general notability criterion OR one of the topic-specific criteria. That's what this page says, that what the sports page also says. EXCEPT that in the nutshell of the sports page, it says in effect that the subject should satisfy the GNC AND one of the topic-specific criteria. And people on that talk page are claiming that this is in order, since that's what the page really means. Who's right here? How can you have a nutshell that conveys a quite opposite message to that of the page itself? And if what the nutshell says is accurate, then how come this page and the sports page are allowed to continue to state something quite else? Can someone sort this out, please; the cryptic way the information is presented is bad enough, but to have plain contradictions (and to try to defend them when they are pointed out) is surely unacceptable to all of us. Victor Yus (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been cases in the past of some devote NSPORTS editors that presume its "and", and have been shown wrong in AFD. The only consensus that NSPORTS properly makes is that while passing the GNG is presumed notable, that coverage needs to be more than just routine (eg reporting on an average game) or regional (eg reporting on a local athlete) - and such restrictions on the GNG are appropriate to be called out there. But it is not the case that both the GNG and the subject specific requirements have to be met, the idea being that meeting the specific requirement will ultimately lead to notability by the GNG. --M ASEM (t) 12:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So to be clear, would you agree that the "nutshell" currently displayed on that page does NOT accurately put that page into a nutshell? Never mind, I see you've replied there, thanks. Victor Yus (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to finding the arguments that I and other editors have made in good faith described here as "nutty", even if it was said as a joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that one, then (clearly it was meant jokingly... nutshell, nutty, see what I've done there?) What I meant was nutty, though, was not the editors, but the internally contradictory situation that exists on the guideline pages. Victor Yus (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've modified the section header accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of these pages is to communicate the community's real practices to people who aren't familiar with them. And the fact is, the community has very different standards for different subjects.  A person who has two acting credits in a studio film and a self-promoting website is frequently deemed worthy of an article even if we can't (currently) find a single independent source that is truly about the person, rather than about the films.  A person who has published two dozen books and has been the subject of a full-age profile in their hometown newspaper might be deemed non-notable.
 * NSPORTS correctly reflects the fact that the community frequently applies a slightly higher standard to athletes. The community does the same for small businesses, because the long history of self-promoting and spammy business articles makes us skeptical of the value of articles about businesses.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It has to pass the GNG or a subject specific guideline. Some argue that and apparently edited that page at sometime to say something stupid.  No sense having a subject specific guideline if you are going to just follow the GNG regardless.   D r e a m Focus  20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... while a lot of people think we should require GNG and SNG (myself among them)... the fact is that those of us who share that view are in the minority. The majority favor GNG or SNG, so that is the policy.  My solution is to work with projects on their SNGs, so they better mesh with GNG and limit the damage. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The SNGs modify Wikipedia-Notability for the GNG for different areas. If an SNG is required in addition to the GNG, then the bar is raised with respect for the general case.  If for sports, the bar is raised, perhaps it is because there are reliable sources that write excessively and non-critically about sports.  Do the newspaper backpages demonstrate evidence of notability less effectively than the front pages?  For WP:PROF, it establishes criteria for academics that do not reflect the existence of sources that cover the academic directly.  This appears to lower the bar for academics.  However, do newspapers, or popular books, choose to devote space to routine coverage of academics, like they do for sports, or politicians, or celebrities? Exactly what WP:NSPORT says is a matter for discussion at WT:NSPORT, with strict guidance from what articles are mostly present, what possible articles are mostly absent, and what usually happens at AfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WhatAmIDoing writes: The purpose of these pages is to communicate the community's real practices to people who aren't familiar with them. And hurrah for that. This sentence should be written IN LARGE FLASHING LETTERS (not literally) at the top of every "guideline" page, since many of the people who write these pages seem to have forgotten it. The pages look as if they are written largely with the real purpose of obscuring, or even telling lies about, the community's real practices. Victor Yus (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, that would make no sense. Policy and guideline pages are where the communities practices are documented and recorded for all editors, so that there's no question what those practices are when they come up in debate.
 * There are cases of guideline pages that often restart one or more policy/guideline pages in a manner that does not introduce any new guidance but simplifies or emphasizes how all these work together (WP:WAF comes to mind), but there needs to be pages that actually document things for all users, and that's what this page is for. --M ASEM (t) 13:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory, but my point is that, because of the way it's written, it fails to do that. (And is by no means alone among guideline pages in that respect.) A rational person, having read this page, has no means of knowing what the practices actually are. So in fact, as we have seen on this talk page, there very much is a question of what the practices are when they come up in debate (or just when an individual is trying to find out for themself what the practices are). Victor Yus (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the majority cases, the SNGs are written with GNG in mind (ie they may modify GNG a bit, but they don't actually conflict)... but, as things are now, there is a definite possibility that they could. If we continue with "GNG or SNG"... what do we do when a SNG directly conflicts with GNG?  For example, GNG says that to demonstrate notability, there should be significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject... suppose one of our SNGs contradicted this and stated that coverage in any source is good enough, whether it is independent or not?  Which do we follow? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, see how confusing it all is. If we are now treating these pages as laws to be followed, then I would say we follow the SNG in such a situation, since this page is relatively clear in stating that the GNG is just one possible route to notability. ("A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.") But we should rather be considering what actual practice is or would be in such situations, and trying to document it here. Victor Yus (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there were an SNG that proposed something that directly overrode the GNG, there would likely be discussion to invalidate or change that SNG. This came out of one of the previous RFCs on notability: an SNG can be purposely stricter than the GNG (ala NSPORTS and restrictions on routine/regional coverage), but they cannot purpose something weaker than the GNG.  So that's a case that shouldn't happen and if it did, it would be corrected in the SNG. --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But previously you told me (and the pages also tell me) that something will be presumed notable either if it satisfies the GNG or if it satisfies one of the SNGs. Now you're saying that the SNGs are supposed to provide criteria to be satisfied in addition to the GNG. ?? Victor Yus (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The criteria are alternatives to the GNG and thus are not weakening it. But if I made an SNG that said something specifically in contrary to the GNG, I would very much expect it to be challenged and demoted away from a guideline. This is based on the working premise that criteria alternatives in SNGs are aimed to eventually provide GNG-like sourcing for a topic, but are not required to allow the article to grow and develop at WP. --M ASEM  (t) 14:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I can accept that as a coherent philosophy. Though if it's the prevailing one, it doesn't seem to be well documented on this page. I suspect that an alternative one would be that many editors consider that certain statuses make a topic worthy of attention in its own right; we might realistically strive towards having a page for every professional footballer, for example, believing that even if some such person turns out to have largely escaped the attention of other outlets, he is still deserving of ours (providing we can find at least some reliable source to confirm that he was a professional footballer). Victor Yus (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

GNG
GNG currently doesn't appear to indicate numbers. Are a number of sources with significant coverage required for GNG or just a single source? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GNG is purposely vague on numbers, as it requires "significant" coverage. A single secondary source may be able to satisfy that providing that the source is very reliable, thorough, and extremely in-depth (eg, a biography book about a person written by a well-respected author, could do it), but generally we are looking for "multiple" sources. Again, we don't give a number as it simply depends when "significant" is met by the sources provided, a very subjective call. --M ASEM (t) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is the nutshell that clarifies that we need "sufficiently significant" attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * GNG requires that we have "sources", which means two or more. So in addition to your robust biography, you'd also need a second source with at least one non-trivial sentence.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two "good" sources such as two independent newspaper articles reporting the general nature of the topic are commonly accepted as satisfying notability. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen, in the past, the argument that a single, deep source is sufficient but usually predicated that there's a reference list that would take time to obtain and compile. It's a rare case, of course, but one allowable under IAR. --M ASEM (t) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure two newspaper articles wouldn't be enough for GNG. That would go against NOT. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So by your theory we can't use newspapers as sources because they contain news? Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you arrived at that conclusion. We are discussing notability, not due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure all this depends on context. Two newspaper articles about a much-published academic would be more than enough, two articles about someone doing a charity baked-beans-bath sitting would not. (Probably, I'm just guessing.) All these things are subjective judgements, and we know in our own minds what kind of subjects we think Wikipedia ought to cover and which it shouldn't, and I guess it depends only to a limited extent on the measured quantity of "coverage" they've received. The GNG is presumably phrased in such vague terms partly in order that we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean in a given situation (and I'm not even saying that's a bad thing, though we could be more open about it). Victor Yus (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two newspaper articles could be sufficient for notability, if they are not covering the topic as a recent news story but as an interest piece - eg it is not recentism reporting. This is often done on Saturday/Sunday editions where news is slow.  So no, we don't discount newspaper stories, and it is quite possible two stories would be sufficient for coverage. But this doesn't mean all newspaper stories are sufficient for notability. --M ASEM  (t) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Two newspaper articles that, say, analyze a corruption case and its fallout, would be fine. But the majority of newspaper articles are primary sources, which the GNG doesn't consider to be evidence of notability.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of spin out articles
A person is pointing to WP:SIZE as meaning that individual games in a notable series do not need individual notability. They have put this bit into WP:Summary style  I believe this is okay for very long  lists but not for subsections of an article which are turned into individual articles. Please discuss at Village_pump_(policy). Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be me, and it's not exactly my meaning. My meaning is that there are many versions of fudging already extant when asking whether spinout subtopics are notable, games in a series being one example. The generic question on notability is lively at VPP. The specific question of whether the sentence of WP:SIZE needs changing (I don't think it does) appears at its talk page. JJB 20:41, 25 May 2012‎ (UTC)

"worthy of notice"
I have restored these three words to the lede.


 * Original removal edit comment, "Cut "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." 1. The lead is repetative, this is a variation written multiple times. 2. It uses a much looser traditional dictionary definition that contradicts the GNG) (undo)"
 * Reverted with the edit comment, "restoring the key sentence in the lede) (undo)"
 * Most recent removal edit comment, "(Worthy of notice: remove random, inconsistent additional definition. Key only to enable a narrow mis-reading of WP:N) (undo)"
 * Restored with the edit comment, "This is the antecedent for the same three words in WP:GNG, it is key to relating all of the notability guidelines.) (undo)" Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I remind you that you are required to reach consensus on the talk page before re-inserting text. You do not appear to have provided reasoning for the text here. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On this page we start with silent consensus. You now have a vocal consensus of two (Unscintillating and me). The reasoning stated (antecedent, key), in addition to the terms having important shades of difference and thus not being redundant, is sufficient. JJB 01:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out to you previously, an editor is required to discuss changes per WP:BRD before re-inserting it. When an editor reverts text which was inserted then very clearly there is not a silent consensus. The changes should be discussed on the talk page and a consensus reached per WP:CONSENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "per BRD", "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." Talk page discussion is only one of several options that editors can take if you revert their changes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Against having that in there.  D r e a m Focus  01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do agree with Dream that notability of some list topics is questionable: there's a WP:VPP discussion about it right now. So I'll wait to see what the history of this sentence in this page is. JJB 01:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a pleasure to agree with you again Dream Focus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that different people read different things from “Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

It begins: “Article and list topics must be notable”. That part is OK, stating what the purpose of WP:N is, except that it is completely redundant and inferior to the paragraph’s 1st sentence. The tail end of the sentence: “notable, or "worthy of notice" says what? Does it mean either (a) or (b):
 * (a) "Article and list topics must be notable”; or
 * (b) "Article and list topics must "worthy of notice".

If so, (a) is redundant and inferior to the lede sentence and (b) means what? What is (in scare quotes) “worthy of notice”?

Alternatively, the sentence serves to implicitly define “notable” as “worthy of notice”. This may be true in common real world usage, and I think this is why the sentence is there. However, Wikipedia-notability is a specialist term that is not the same as used in real world usage. This is the very old, well known source of confusion for newcomers, and some old timers. I think it is best that we just don’t go into the definitions that we don’t use. However, if we do, what we should then say is that in WP:N, notability ‘’’does not’’’ mean “worthy of notice.

This all came up again last May, when Victor Yus rightly drew attention to the very unclear language used, especially in the lede. (Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_51) In that conversation, when I asked "worthy of notice" by whom?, Masem answered
 * The "by whom" is "the Wikipedia community" …

I think that is absurd. WP:N is written to apply to mainspace articles. We don’t choose what to make into standalone articles on that basis of what the Wikipedia community notices. That would be blatant OR. We follow WP:N, which is not Notability. We do not attempt to judge ourselves what is worthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Conclusion: Looks like Unscintillating is the only one with clean hands (ADD: nicely proven by the edit-conflicted text). The next uninvolved editor should revert the "worthy of notice" back into the article (or else continue to discuss the restoration of this long-consensus text). JJB 04:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no consensus to make the change to remove this sentence.
 * 2) Contrary to the belief that this sentence is not being used, I used it earlier today at an AfD discussion before I discovered that the text was missing.
 * 3) The removal of this text removes the antecedent to the same three words in WP:GNG, which says, "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice..." This means that the technical phrase usually worthy of notice has lost meaning.
 * 4) As per this exception clause in WP:GNG, editors may from time to time decide that even though a notability guideline is satisfied, the topic is still not "worthy of notice". And the contrary is also true, that even though a topic fails WP:GNG and all of the other notability guidelines, the topic may still yet be deemed "worthy of notice".
 * 5) All guidelines are guidelines to answering the question, is the topic "worthy of notice".
 * 6) As to the questions above (a) and (b), (b) is what defines "notable".
 * 7) This phrase is repeated in WP:ORG, with the additional definition "attracts attention".
 * 8) The argument that this phrase "contradicts GNG" would mean that we've had a contradictory guideline for a long time, yet no contradiction is shown.
 * 9) I don't have an opinion about the benefits of mentioning the words "list topics" here, the key words are "worthy of notice".
 * Edit-conflict analysis: "Worthy of notice" has been the definition of N for 5 years, originally as 'A notable topic, by definition, is one that is "worthy of notice"; this is a concept distinct from "fame" or "importance"', added in 2007 as the result of 'Implementing the proposal per lengthy talk discussions'.
 * SmokeyJoe deleted it this 8 May with the rationale Unscintillating objected to earlier today.
 * IRWolfie- did not jump on SmokeyJoe for deleting longstanding text without consensus.
 * I replied to IRWolfie- somewhat harshly without thinking of SmokeyJoe; refactored.
 * While Dream Focus's statement is correct that "Most list articles don't have references to prove they are notable anyway", guidance for 5 years has been that they must be notable somehow ("N is relevant" as VPP has it, and we are analyzing the community's "somehows" there). Accordingly this valid statement is insufficient to delete consensus text on any of the summary rationales provided.
 * Dmcq jumped into the revert battle and then decided it was at the wrong point in the seesaw and self-reverted.
 * SmokeyJoe has properly given a longer rationale. In reply, I believe (1) the deleted sentence is not redundant with the lead, (2) "worthy of notice" is in quotes because it's the def of "notable", (3) both alternative interpretations SmokeyJoe found are accurate and therefore the ambiguity is irrelevant, (4) "worthy of notice by the community (at large)" is not inaccurate because only people who use WP will "notice" in one sense, (5) naturally "worthy as judged by the community" is inaccurate but I don't see anyone supporting that, (6) in another sense I would say "worthy of notice by RS" is the intent, which is a good def of what Joe calls "Wikipedia-notability", and (7) none of this deals with the observation that, if (1) is true in some editors' POVs like mine, then deletion of the sentence weakens N and removes the crux "must" criterion.
 * To your last dot point: ‘(1) Really? You must be reading different meanings to what I read. (2)  “worthy of notice” is not the definition of “notable” as used in WP:N.  WP:N is so much more complex.  (4)  What is that in reply to?  (5)  "worthy as judged by the community" is not something I would support, as it is self referential and therefore useless as guidance.  (6) "worthy of notice by RS" is getting better, but for WP:N we need to use past tense.  The topic must already be “noticed” (actually, directly covered) in RSs.  (7) The “must” is already weakened by the guideline status of the page.  There is complex balance here, with deletion policy referencing this guideline directly.  It is awkward.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Different because "articles must be notable" is nowhere else in the article. (4) Unimportant, that was enfolding others' comments. (6) Fine. (7) If "must" is weakened, are you saying some articles are not notable by any definition? Are you saying we can delete the point that all articles must be notable by some definition? Thanks. JJB 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Well, that's because it is not true, because "notable" is not well defined.  Instead, see the GNG.  The name of the Project page is historical and reflects the limitations of the language.  (7)  No, not me, i am not really engaged in a debate on the "must", although I note that the language is not directed to assisting a newcomer in deciding whether they should attempt a new article on a specific subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "clean hands" is the metaphor of choice here, however, as I see it, I am agitating for a change and Unscintillating is the strongest/fastest opposer to the change. I did not think that he had provided sufficient explanation for his oppose, so I tried again. This time he has given me more to read, and I am reading it carefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence should not be there. WP:POLICY says "be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification." I think it is just confusing repetitive rambling and so liable to misinterpretation. Dmcq (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia talk:Summary style, which is now a convergent conversation, I pointed out why deleting the "must" statement suggests you don't believe topics must be notable, which is contrary to what you've said a long time. The reason this is not redundant is that "notability is a test" is not a "must" or duty but a deliberately ambiguous lead, agreed by consensus, that is very easy to wikilawyer without the accompanying "must". As the last reverter here, you are hereby invited to self-revert and restore the 5-year consensus: it would not penalize you because it's part of the same edit set. (Five sentences on conciseness?!) JJB 04:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: We the editors of WP are the only ones that can determine the "worthy of notice" of a topic when it comes to inclusion. No other source deems a topic as "notable" and ergo someone has to make that decision; in WP, we do that via consensus whether before article creation, at AFD, or other processes.  --M ASEM  (t) 06:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, that is not something I would agree to say. That makes WP:N sound extremely subjective.  Often, the decision is subjective, but we've made WP:N and the subguidelines reasonably objective.  Whether a topic is "worthy of inclusion as a standalone article on Wikipedia" is not clearly communicated when a newcomer is told that a certain band's obscure album is not "worthy of notice".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N has always been subjective. We don't spell out many details of the GNG (how many sources are enough, how significant they have to be, etc.) It's not a quantifiable term both outside and inside WP.  Now, what you're implying about the newcomer issue is the fact that there is no easy way to concise state the complexities of the GNG/SNGs in a few words outside of saying "worthy of notice", so there's not much more that can be said in the lead. They have to read more to understand the methods we use to determine via consensus if something is "worthy of notice". --M ASEM  (t) 13:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N is very easy to leave as subjective, but we do our best to make objective indicators so that unencultured newcomers can make sense of it. The GNG spells out many details in very little space.  Two sources are a minimum, but we leave it as a plural sources because we don’t want the reader to become fixated at two, or to think that two is good enough (more is better).  It is quantifiable, but you need weighting factors taking into account depth of coverage and relative independence.  I’m saying that “worthy of notice” without qualification plays into the pre-existing misconception that WP:Notability means what you might think it does from the real world meaning of “notable”, specifically along the lines of inherent worth.  There is more that could be said, but it would be much better for it to say less and let the reader get to the GNG sooner.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For all technical purposes, WP:N is based on the English meaning. (see  to avoid wiki-bias).  It is a specific vague English term.  Now, on WP, we have several facets of actually defining "worthy of note".  We consider topics with significant secondary coverage to be worthy of note. We consider, for certain fields, topics that meet specific criteria (eg: Nobel prize winners) to be worthy of note.  We consider that certain topics are worthy of note regardless of what existing coverage or other facets we know about them (read: towns and villages).  This is non-inclusive.  Hence, the phrase "worthy of note" is exactly the core of notability and when we presume we give such topics their own articles.  We want to make sure that WP:N's inclusion allowance is towards topics that appeal to a worldwide encyclopedia that is meant to summarize the whole of human knowledge, and thus "worthy of note" is a necessary gate to avoid indiscriminate inclusion; but any further clarification would dilute the intent of the core of WP:N. --M ASEM  (t) 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But "notable" on WP does not mean "worthy of note" (I thought it was you who explained that fact to me before, but I may be wrong). "Notable" here means worthy of being treated in a separate article. The population of Allo is worthy of note, and so we note it, but it is not "notable" in the sense of this page (we wouldn't want to have an article called Population of Allo). So anything that implies that "notable" here is being used in any way in its normal English sense is not only unhelpful (in that it doesn't tell us anything) but it is plain misleading. What we should say, to make things clear, is that the word "notable" is used on Wikipedia to denote topics that have received sufficient attention... to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. Nothing that implies it's anything other than internal jargon. Victor Yus (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Misconception again. The presumption of notability is a necessary condition for a topic to have an article, but we should not be confusing that notability on WP is the quality of having an article. The area where we differ from the definition is that we are based on consensus-based presumption of being worthy of note, as opposed to just the assertion of that. --M ASEM  (t) 12:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand you now. Do you or do you not agree that the topic "the population of Allo" is worthy of Wikipedia's note, but is not notable in Wikipedia's sense? Victor Yus (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, "the population of Allo" is not a notable topic. There is no evidence that that concept has been discussed in depth in any sources. Reported, yes, but not discussed.  "Allo" is a notable topic being a recognized town, so by long-standing consensus, is considered "worthy of note". But there'snothing about the population that is. --M ASEM  (t) 23:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But we aim to note the population of such places. So it must be worthy of note. Even though it's not "notable". Hence my point - that Wikipedia's "notable" does not equate to "worthy of note". Victor Yus (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are some points I made in this diff at an AfD in December.  These points were intended as a partial response to an editor who had asked a question there and had also posted here.


 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, having read this and its context, you are writing with correct meaning, but your use of "worthy of notice" means "meets one of our thresholds for deciding whether the topic should have a stand alone article". You use it as a term of art, it is not understood, and it doesn't advance the conversation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If topics don't have to be "worthy of notice", then how do we know that they are notable? What explains the clause in WP:GNG, usually worthy of notice?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I try, but I can only read that as a really weird question. How do you know that a topic is worthy of notice? It is sufficiently notable for inclusion as a stand alone article if it meets the GNG or some SNG. The GNG and SNGs give you something to work with. What are you supposed to do with the nebulous "worthy of notice", given that you aren't already encultured?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Unscintillating. I'm seeing what you mean, and it is reasonable, but it requires some creative skill to understand it correctly.  When you give these explanations to newcomers as their new content is deleted, do they appear to understand?  I'm thinking that in each case, the "worthy of notice" means "worthy of notice by Wikipedia as a stand alone article", and that it doesn't mean "worthy of notice in absolute terms".  I still think that the lede of WP:N could use some copyediting for comprehensibility.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would assume that a reasonable response by a newbie to reading my post is to get away from AfD as fast and as far as possible...kinda like the famous sign, "Abandon all hope ye who enter here". I hope that when they get curious again they will be better prepared.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a thin line between people misunderstanding and misrepresenting technical notability terms with their alternate English meanings, and Wikilawyering that conveniently misuses the terms. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, my interest here was stirred again because I thought I saw you wikilawyering with "worthy of notice". You were quoting a brief ambiguous phrase without contect, and when I looked, it came from a garbled, repetative meandering lede that I think few read.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So now we find out what happened here, the idea to remove the notability definitions here and at WP:ORG on May 8 goes back to two edits I made at an RfC at WT:Notability (people) on May 7. Among other things, I quoted, "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."  I also quoted from the nutshell of WP:N, and the definitions of notability in WP:N and WP:ORG.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The other point is that SmokeyJoe seems to still be supporting a 2006 version of notability in which notability requires sufficient prose sources to write an encyclopedia article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, on May 7 you wrote something that really didn't make sense to me. In hindsight, I'd say that you knew what you meant, but I certainly didn't.  So I went reading.  I'd thought that WP:N was in pretty much fair shape after years of wrangling, but then I discovered the lede of WP:N as if I'd never properly read it before (NB I've studied the GNG word by word), and the worst in it is your "worthy of notice".  It didn't fit with WP:N as a whole, it contradicted/compromised WP:GNG as the robust definition of notability, it's removal left the lede less confusing, so I removed it.
 * 2006 and prose?! That sounds familiar but from long ago.  Did I say that, or did I support something?  I think I remember thinking that emphasising the need for sources to contain coverage in the form of "prose" might be helpful for the unhappy newcomers who come with there subject and numerous very reliable sources listing their subject as data amongst data.  By "prose", I mean that it should be possible to extract a two or three sentence passage that speaks directly about their subject.  Your comment was unexpected.  What did I do that makes you say what you said, and if true, what would be wrong with it?  Perhaps the answer belongs on my User Talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the point is that, like our mainspace topics, "notability" needs a definition in the lede...how about as a new definition, "worthy of notice as a stand-alone article". Perhaps a section could be added, "== Definition ==".  In particular, the point for this section would be that there are several things that "notability" does not mean, and that perhaps these could be factored out of the lede.  We've had a long-running problem at WT:V with material in the lede that was "overly concise" because it did not have a matching section to allow for expansion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is an AfD which IMO was decided on the basis of passing WP:GNG but not being "worthy of notice", Articles for deletion/33550336. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As elsewhere, I see that you like to use the term, you know what you mean, but no one else does. You would be more persuasive if you used language more easily understood.  "Worthy of notice" is ambiguous.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the first dictionary definition added to WP:N, it was added on 2006-12-23. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And see how complicated it was. Discussion was rife back then about how "notability" was a poor choice of word, and different people reading different indended meanings.  Uncle G introducing a long definition selecting nuances from different meanings illustrates the problem.  We can't go with dictionary defintions here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see any current consensus regarding this sentence. There are three discussions, one about "worthy of notice", one about "must", and one about "list topics".  Those who want portions changed do not offer proposals that only make the changes they indicate are needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read your response above to the AfD I feel much more certain that 'worthy of notice' is a phrase that is liable to be misunderstood, that it can mean whatever a person wants it to mean. It can give the impression that anything the editor things is worth bringing to the notice of others satisfies the guideline, not just things that have actually been noticed by some wide audience. I am now of a quite strong opinion it should not be included. Dmcq (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase 'merits an article' in the lead seems to cover the situation far better I think. Dmcq (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The phrase is meaningless and will not help improve any reader's understanding of the matter. (The same also applies to much of the rest of the introduction, which dearly needs a rewrite, something I was attempting to do before.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit comment: (Undid revision 494561536. Restoring long-standing version. As shown by the talk page, we aren't having a coherent discussion about removal. Also, "worthy of notice" is in a current AfD discussion.) Unscintillating (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What AfD is that please? Does that AfD involve or is it linked to one of the people here? Or is the phrase use din some particularly important way at that AfD? Thanks. Also I don't know why you are saying the discussion here is incoherent. One can't stop discussions just because you consider one person is incoherent - that is not a consensus way of doing things and would enable a person to stop all progress by being incoherent. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As requested, here are diffs from a current AfD,, .  One quote mentions "'worthy of notice' as per the lede of WP:N", and the other includes "WP:N 'worthy of notice' ".  Unscintillating (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are the one involved in AfDs and want to keep this phrase. I don't really see that the use is in any particularly important way. If you do see it as particularly important I'd have thought you should definitely declare the conflict of interest and not start actually editing the page yourself. I don't see it as an important reference though so I'm happy for you to be involved here but only if you discount any link between here and the AfD. I'm still not certain what this business about incoherent is though. Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep "worthy of notice" for now while we discuss it as longstanding consensus. Discussion is good. The meaning, though, is "judged worthy by RS publishers of notice in RS, 'enough' times". Thus "worthy" has a definitional drag because it can also mean "judged worthy by WP" and this often does not result in contradiction. Rather than change the lead, it's often better to figure out what we all mean and then put it in a clarifying sentence later in the page. JJB 13:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You want to include something that is redundant and you acknowledge is confusing and stick more sentences later into explain this business?That is hardly in line with WP:POLICY 2Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples" Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing 'worthy of notice' is a change to the guideline which has a chance of going through but people have used the phrase quite a bit. I don't think any great new arguments are going to come forward so I think an RfC should be set up rather than just continue debating here. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope all those who claim that this guideline are some kind of carefully honed text of almost sacred rank can see how their position collapses when we have discussions like this. We're talking about a nonsensical phrase that was routinely expunged from the page a few weeks ago to absolutely no protest, but we are now having to accept it back because one person seems to like it (although there is no comprehensible explanation as to why, or what it is supposed to mean) and is prepared to edit-war to get their way. The whole of the introduction is full of equally meaningless or off-topic phrases, yet when we anyone tries to improve it (in line with normal Wikipedia practice) those improvements are mindlessly blocked. If this practice were adopted on a Wikipedia article we could surely all see how detrimental to its quality that would be; why can you not see that it's equally detrimental to the quality of a Wikipedia guideline? Victor Yus (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a lack of understanding. WP:N is probably the second-most contested (citation needed) policy/guideline after WP:V ever since its inception. It is the core of the so-called "inclusionist/deletionist" war, several RFCs, RFC/Us, and ArbCom cases.  As such, the wording has been carefully crafted to tread the middle ground. The "nonsensical phrases" are actually our best drafts of explaining actual practice without incurring the wrath of wikilaywers on other side of the issue to use the wrong phrasing to win their way at AFD and other places.  (Consider how much volume of discussion that over at WP:V the "verifyability, not truth" phrase has generated...) There are phrases we need to keep here as long standing neutral phrasing, but there is the arguments towards clarity via footnoting if necessary. --M ASEM  (t) 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be not so much a wikilawyer as a wikidiplomat; you use "neutral" as a polite way of describing sentences that are simply meaningless. By expunging them we would not lose anything in terms of neutrality, but we would save people the trouble of reading them, thinking they're important, and then engaging in the hopeless task of trying to work out what they mean. Victor Yus (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I point to "verifyability not truth" at WP:V. It may seem just as meaningless as "worthy of note" or the like in WP:N, but it is a long-standing, brief summary of what WP:V is; the rest of that policy to explain exactly what that means.  In the case of WP:N, what you are calling meaningless sentences are long-standing, consensus-agreed summaries of how WP:N actually works on WP.  To try to explain it in simpler terms in the lead creates the holes that wikilaywers will drive through even if the body which explains everything remains unchanged. I don't dismiss there might be language that avoids this, but remember, this is a 6 year old guideline that has had a lot of eyes on it; if there was better language that reflected how WP:N worked we'd have likely switched to that already. --M ASEM  (t) 12:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Merits an article' is what I thought would be a better alternative. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that that would lead to circularity (a topic merits an article if it merits an article). Better to leave out the sentence altogether - no wikilawyers will be able to abuse it for anything then. (And "verifiability not truth" is yet another example of the same kind of stupidity that results from assigning some poorly chosen sequence of words some kind of divine status just because it happens to be "long-standing".) Victor Yus (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying stick in the sentence 'a topic merits an article if it merits an article'. I was saying the phrase there 'merits an article' can be used by people instead of the current 'worthy of notice' Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that's still not right. Yes, the bulk of topics that meet one of the measures of being "worthy of note" from WP:N will be able to have an article, but it is not the sole determination. A topic can fail NOT, or in some cases, be included even if there's a large question of being "worthy of note" if consensus allows for it. On WP:N, the key thing we are trying to get people to understand is that our yardstick for inclusion includes the idea of being "worthy of note" which can be proven in various ways. --M ASEM  (t) 22:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline mentions that other criteria may preclude an article from being set up. If something is decided by AfD to be worth an article though it doesn't seem to satisfy the guideline then then it is a corner case if not too common, or the guideline should be changed if it is common. Either way it merits an article because consensus says so. All merits an article means is that if an article is set up it would succeed at AfD. 'worthy of note'is confused and people are always wondering whether notability applies to the contents of articles. Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone largely uninvolved with this issue: I think that the most important use of the page is to help new and inexperienced people figure out what sorts of topics are likely to be included. IMO the phrase worthy of notice is confusing to this important population. I think it would be far more pointful to define notability in terms of "whether the subject qualifies a separate, standalone article on the English Wikipedia". There are, after all, many things that are "worthy" of notice but haven't actually received that notice (yet), and we do not accept such subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly and why I prefer merits an article. 'Might merit an article' is even more correct as there may be other good reasons something doesn't merit an article, if somebody can shorten that to three words it would be good as there sems to be a preference for three word sayings. Dmcq (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with your way of thinking, but I don't really know what you are proposing. In what place are you suggesting this four- or three-word phrase should appear? Victor Yus (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have
 * A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.
 * This can be change to for instance
 * A topic is presumed to "merit an article" if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.
 * As you can see the change is very slight. Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "and list" from a sentence in the lede of WP:N
The two words "and list" were added in this diff on 2010-11-30 with the edit comment, "(completing summary of Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. make further revisions to ensure accuracy if necessary.)"

Relevant to the current discussion above, it is proposed to again remove the two words, as follows: Unscintillating (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Was:
 * New:


 * Support as proposer This sentence is confounded unnecessarily by these two words.  This proposal is not a semantic change as the essential point already exists in the body of the guideline, where WP:LISTN says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think I'd want a lot more convincing before saying that lists didn't need notability! If this guideline includes WP:LISTN then lists should be there in the lead summarizing the guideline, I can't see any reasoning for anything else. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Notability is the main thing that determines whether something gets to be an article. Unless you want to get rid of the notability criteria altogether, it makes no sense to exempt one type of article. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the proposer that since lists are articles the two don't need to be distinguished. But here I feel that they should be distinguished, so the issue doesn't get muddled up. The existing wording, although a bit redundant, is clear. Clarity is preferred to brevity.  Them From  Space  19:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A list topic is an article, although a bit different, but this proposal obfuscates the discussion about a broader rewrite of the lede.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. Where was there a coherent discussion about anything?  Multiple editors above were arguing against including something that has been consensus for five years, as if the year is currently 2007.  One editor reverted himself on the Project Page.  I have previously identified three different topics of discussion, one of which is this one, and this one had no support for retention when I posted the proposal.  I had and have every reason to think that this proposal would and will reduce the complexity of any other discussion.  This particular point you specifically said that you agreed with Dream Focus.  I'm still interested in the explanation of how the "worthy of notice" sentence conflicts with WP:GNG.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For policies and guidelines one really needs a good reason for keeping things in, not for removing them. So your proposal here is correct on that ground, we need a good reason for keeping 'and list' in. People who want to keep "worthy of notice" in need a good reason for keeping it in, not just that under one interpretation it doesn't conflict with the guideline. The reason I gave above for keeping 'and list' is that lists are explicitly distinguished and treated quite separately in the guideline under WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "And list" was added after the RFC on list notability about 2+ years ago. It is not like someone had put that in without any notice.  And it is the case that when something has been added after consensus discussion, it is necessary to show consensus to remove the problem phrase, to move away from an accepted status quo, even if that inclusion is contested years later. --M ASEM  (t) 13:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Sometimes people get confused and nominate a certain type of list article for deletion, which ends up getting kept rather quickly. All notable series have articles for the list of episodes and list of characters.   D r e a m Focus  00:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When we had discussion about adding notability of lists to this guideline, I tried to debate the inclusion for lists of characters and similar such lists. The problem is that we couldn't agree to any absolute allowance or disallowence. Hence why the current advice on lists is present (and thus needs to be acknowledged in the lead) but only outlines the specific cases we could come to agreement.  The present advice makes no attempt to qualify the notability of such lists of characters and leaves it to consensus. --M ASEM  (t) 10:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment to DreamFocus above - we do address the notability of lists, but it is not exacting advice because of the difficulty in establishing exactly when notability of lists is allowed or disallowed outside of case-by-case evaluation. --M ASEM (t) 10:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there ever been a list for episodes or characters of a show which was notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, that was deleted? Is consensus for years now always been to allow it?  Its not really a case by case thing.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging by several entries that meet "List of X characters" that were deleted from WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements/archive, yes. Furthermore, if there's only a small amount to say about the actual work itself (enough to establish its notability) such that the work + the list of characters (and/or list of TV episodes for such shows), one should not immediately break off to write the character or episode list, per SIZE/summary style. Then, at that past discussion, you got some of the more extreme cases where a show/work is so popular that its character list would span several pages (Simpsons, South Park, Pokemon) where some argued that how things were arbitrarily being split off by concepts like "protagonists" or "antagonists" were considered as original research.  Much exhaustion was made on the point at that LISTN discussion and the conclusion was the same as past attempts at fictional notability: we can't find a consistent means that it is handled in practice so we best not offer any advice beyond directing towards more notability demonstration for the list itself simply to avoid being an AFD target by some. --M ASEM  (t) 23:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose clear and concise statement of community best practices. Changes make things less clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite the entire lede
I propose to rewrite the entire lede with the draft below. It cuts much that is repeated, or is not necessary to say in the lede. It omits truisms - its purpose should not be to educate, but to lead the newcomer to the correct decision making process. On the question of lists, I believe that if covered, they should be covered in their own section.


 * This guideline, Notability, attempts to give objective guidance on whether a topic can have its own article. The intention is to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. It is intended to apply to topics that are already established as being attributable to reliable sources, and are not specifically excluded by the policy What Wikipedia is not.
 * In general terms, if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
 * If a topic passes the general notability guideline below, or a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, then it is presumed to merit a stand alone article.
 * Topics that fail to pass the notability tests are likely to be merged into a larger topic or deleted. Passing a notability test does not guarantee a stand alone article. Editors may use their discretion to merge two or more related topics into a single article.
 * These notability guidelines do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that you need to retain the "what Wikipedia is not" condition in the "presumed to merit" sentence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think it belongs at the end of the first paragraph? WP:NOT is important, but does it need to be stated three times?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that a "presumed to merit" statement without that qualifier is not correct. So inclusion elsewhere would not remedy this.  Probably a minor point, but I tend to see structure and how it might be misused. Sometimes a curse, sometimes a blessing.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to this that the first mention of NOT (after talking about reliable sources) be nixed, but in favor of a sentence after presumtion: something like, "A stand-alone article on a notable topic may not be appropriate if it fails other policies, specifically What Wikipedia is not, or opted by editor discretion or consensus decision." or something like this; this also covers the mistaken conclusion that every notable topic is required to have a stand-alone article.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lists need to be included; again, this was the core of the whole LISTN RFC from a few years ago. Some people asserted WP:N didn't apply to lists but that is not what consensus found. In fact, it is more true that any page in mainspace short of redirects and disambig pages should show its own notability, though exactly how that applies to lists and the like connected to a highly notable topic can be in question. --M ASEM  (t) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the LISTN RFC specify that lists needed full coverage in the lede? Does the paragraph beginning "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists" not suffice?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It suffices as a summary of the RFC, but the problem is that people will assert that since the lead does not mention lists, they will wikilaywer argue that notability doesn't apply to lists even if there is that section. If you take the sentence. "Topics that fail to pass the notability tests..." and change that to "Stand-alone articles and lists on topics that fail to pass the notability tests..." is 1) more correct since merging/deletion happens to articles not topics, and 2) gets the advice about lists in there without wearing anything else down. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the point behind "already established"? I am concerned that this will be abused as indicating that unref'd articles are somehow non-notable by definition (e.g., the article Cancer for the first several years of its existence).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point (this would hit the town/village articles too), but I think that's just language tweaking. Maybe "already established" can be "can be established". --M ASEM  (t) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I applaud the idea of rewriting the intro to this page. The proposal above, though, still seems a bit messed up. (Though it's probably an improvement on the current one.) In particular: (1) I don't think a topic can be attributable to sources, though information about that topic might be. (2) I don't think the policy "What Wikipedia is not" specifically excludes anything. (3) After you've said there must be attributable information on the topic, you don't then need to repeat the point in the first sentence of the second paragraph. (4) The sentence about "determining notability does not necessarily depend on..." seems to be ahead of itself, since you haven't yet said what notability does depend on. (5) The link to rebuttable presumption is pretentious and probably inappropriate anyway; what we mean here is probably just "considered". And some other minor things, but these points stand out. Victor Yus (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does specificially exclude certain types of content. An article I've been watching just to keep track of any editing wars is Campaign for "santorum" neologism.  This article (for the most part) as it stands does avoid NOT, but there's many subparts that are notable themselves as separate articles but would fail WP:NOT in a moment such as soapboxing and neologisms.  Understanding that we have used "presumed" specifically over something like "considered" is also very important, at it describes how one does go about challenging the presumption and rebutting that challenge. "Considered" implied a final decision, which it is not.  Again, there are subties that this version is still capturing that need to stay and thus can't be wiped away without understanding the years of debate of this guideline. --M ASEM  (t) 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So go on, how does one challenge the presumption or rebut such a challenge? (I'm also still not seeing how WP:ISNOT specifically excludes any topic from having an article, perhaps if you gave a specific example?) Victor Yus (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some AfDs and then an RfC based on them is by far the most convincing demonstration of consensus. Any policy that contradicts that is not in tune with common practice and consensus. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. AFD is the primary venue where the presumption of notability is challenged. As for WP:NOT, if you have an article that is composed of material that nearly all of it fails any of the facets of NOT, and that material cannot be savaged or modified into a form to avoid that, then the article is usually deleted. The example about "santorum" itself is fine, but if the article was only focused on the word "santorum" (it's a notable term), it fails WP:NOT and would be deleted or merged. --M ASEM (t) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:NOTNEO? (It's not actually part of WP:NOT, as it turns out.) But even there, it says that if the neologism has been covered by secondary sources (i.e. if it's notable, essentially), then it's OK for an article. And on the other point - well, as you say ANY policy can be contradicted and overruled by actual consensus - so why make this an issue about notability especially? We don't say that articles are presumed neutral, sources are presumed reliable, and so on etc.; why insist on doing it here? Victor Yus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that is because it is a guideline rather than a policy. Policies tend to have a higher level of consensus than guidelines. There are also various subject guidelines which qualify things a bit. Dmcq (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But even other guidelines don't include this "presumed" thing. In any case, the link to rebuttable presumption is completely useless for conveying the idea at hand. If we have to do this, the link should be to some internal Wikipedia page that explains that "consensus does not always accord with policy" or some such. Victor Yus (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability has a very odd relationship with Wikipedia because of the fact that it about loss or retention of information - outright inclusion in WP as opposed to style and content changes in articles. Remember: editors want to fight to get material they are interested in included within WP (see: MMA issues going on right now). They want to show "Look, I've got two sources, it's notable!"  In some very legitimate cases, they actually have provided good sources for notability, so this is not exaggeration here. Yet: if the topic is still not one we would normally include per WP:NOT, or may fail other policies and guidelines, we just can't include it. Or that the bar for reliable sources gets raised over time (it has) and so topics previously considered notable via weak reliable sources may no longer be that case.  The appropriate for a topic to have an article is only as good as the consensus allows for it, and hence why notability is presumed, because if consensus changes, so can the notability aspect. --M ASEM  (t) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a case of "consensus does not always accord with policy". Notability requires consensus.  Notability = Verifiability through WP:Independent sources × Compliance with WP:NOT × Editors' discretion.  If that last factor is zero (say, because we think that  is too narrow a subject), then the subject is not notable (=does not get its own article).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is more accurate and more useful to consider WP:N as a special case of WP:NOR. WP:V is less connected, although WP:A gels very very well with WP:N. WP:NOT marks a much more rigid boundary that is usually well outside the WP:N boundary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all getting rather esoteric (if all you experts are giving different formulae, then clearly none of the formulae is generally accepted, and so we have no business basing the wording of the guideline of any of these formulae), but let me have a go too: Where Where Where policies and guidelines like WP:NOT and WP:N and all the others ought to be working together to define document the function f. At the moment they are failing to do this, because of the anti-communicative way in which they are constructed, worded and interlinked. Victor Yus (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Existence_of_article = Someone's_creation_of_article x Absence_of_consensus_to_delete_article.
 * Consensus_to_delete_article = Established_practice +/- Editorial_discretion
 * Established_practice = f(Type_of_subject, Status, Attention_from_sources).
 * Have you got some specific situation that illustrates WP:NOT and a notability guideline saying different things? In fact in this case if a notability guideline is pretty explicit whereas WP:NOT is general the notability guideline would reflect consensus better irrespective of WP:NOT being a policy and the notability guideline being a guideline. I can see that there can be problems about the crossover point, but if it is giving real problems there should be an RfC with notice to the village pump about the conflict and the notability tightened up at that particular point in most cases I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way I would consider notability to be part of the set of guidelines associated with the policy WP:NOT rather than any of the other policies. Dmcq (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If that was a question to me, then I'm not aware of any conflict between these pages, but that might be mainly because it's so hard to tell what, specifically, any of them are saying. WP:NOT seems to be not so much a policy as an indiscriminate list of thoughts about Wikipedia that happen to fit reasonably well some slogan in the form "Wikipedia is not X". The most valuable feature of the notability guidelines is probably the lists of specific notability criteria that enable people to get on with writing an article without fear of ambush by the deletion warriors. Other than that (and to some extent even including that) there seems to be a deliberate campaign to keep these pages as unhelpful and incomprehensible as possible - perhaps so that everyone can believe they say what he or she would like them to say. Victor Yus (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively (to play devil's advocate) the most "valuable" feature of the all the subject specific notability guidelines is the ability for a small group of enthusiasts to carve out subject specific exceptions from the general notability guideline... exceptions that will allow enthusiasts to write articles on all sorts of things that everyone else thinks are not really all that notable or encyclopedic. (Just noting that there are two sides to every conflict). Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't envisage too many of our readers complaining about that... But if small groups are able to manipulate the content of these pages against overall consensus, then something is clearly amiss. Though we should note that the subject-specific criteria are not "exceptions from" the GNG. One of the more clearly expressed facets of this subject seems to be that the GNG is one sufficient criterion for notability (or for "presumed" notability, as we are for some reason required to say). The subject-specific criteria are other, alternative sufficient criteria. There isn't a conflict between them - what seems to be being said is that Wikipedia would like to have articles on any topics which have EITHER gained a certain amount of attention from reliable sources (GNG), OR have achieved (verifiably) a certain status that makes them encyclopedia-worthy (SNG). At least, this seems a perfectly reasonable way to look at it. Victor Yus (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Summary_style.

This RfC is to decide the specific changes discussed at in VPP. This may affect the notability of subarticles. Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Eyes
Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) is something like the fourth go-round about whether unpublished sources are acceptable. The guideline currently says that sources must "exist", but this is ambiguous, because all sorts of sources—even your checkbook register and your list of what to buy at the grocery store—can be said to "exist", but are completely unsuitable. The talk page discussion resolved in favor of declaring that sources must be "publicly available" (rather than "published", which was my proposal), and then someone reverted it to the strongly and apparently endlessly disputed version, which he naturally called the "agreed version".

I'd like some non-PROF folks to be involved in this discussion. I don't seem to be able to explain basic facts to this group any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This Policy
Good job people, wikipedia will die out because every article written out there will become deleted EXCEPT for something that is popular and mainstream (i.e. Star Trek Episodes) but not MMORPGs or whatever the case it may be. Some people just have OCD with having to non-notabilitify every article it seems 209.159.183.99 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The first time that my edits get deleted is the last time I will edit here. GG over-bureaucratic people, bored vandalizing idiots, a bajillion policies (News reports Youtube video -> Ok, Wikipedia -> NOT SOURCABLE.) ad nausem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.183.99 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful suggestions. -- Jayron  32  18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Most people leave because they are frustrated when their stuff or something they care about gets deleted. Very upsetting for new users especially.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP has grown too much to allow "instant gratification" approaches. New editors need to realize that there's a specific culture we're trying to nourish here through guidelines like notability that otherwise don't seem to make sense without spending time to learn the culture. As such, when first time contributors don't spend the time to learn the culture and instead rush to make pet articles, of course they're going to complain about it.  The problem is that the open wiki nature that we want to have encourages doing without learning; the ends are conflicting with each other. --M ASEM  (t) 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Enduring" notability

 * The current problem is that the word "enduring" is still present in WP:NOT and WP:Notability (events). At AfD editors have argued that a topic is not showing "enduring notability" if it is not receiving ongoing newspaper coverage.  For example, at Articles for deletion/2006 rugby union handbag controversy, the argument was made that a New Zealand rugby incident was not being memorialized annually in Australia.    Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with requiring "enduring" coverage for events... the handbag thing is good example of an article that should never have been written. It was a "notorious" event rather than a notable event (While the event garnering a lot of coverage and hype in the media for a brief time, it turns out that the event had no lasting impact.  In my opinion the article was correctly deleted based on WP:NOTNEWS). Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/JLatexEditor is an example of an article that should never have been written. Unscintillating (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd probably agree about the rugby handbag incident, but it would be very damaging if we started deleting from Wikipedia every article on a topic that isn't the subject of continuing regular newspaper coverage. As you all keep saying, we are not a newspaper, and therefore we shouldn't be removing topics simply on the grounds that they are not news any more. We ought to be able to judge at what sort of level of detail we are capable of covering current events, and try to do that (and not care too much if the occasional overdetailed article gets through - that matters a lot less than the absence of an article that should exist). People of the future will thank us for recording information that they might no longer able to access easily; we make Wikipedia almost redundant if we decide only to tell people things that they can readily and easily find out from other sources. Victor Yus (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree covering "minor" or "less enduring" events (reliably and sourced) can still be of interest for later readers. One needs to keep in mind that there are many more usage scenarios for WP than just the classic quick lookup of the most common terms.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the exact notion of "enduring", i.e. enduring as in longer than the news of the day in some newspaper or enduring as constant publications on the subject over years or decades.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * March 2–3, 2012 tornado outbreak is an example of an article created less than 12 hours after the event. I'm not aware that anyone questions its notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the question isn't really about the distance between the first reliable source and the first Wikipedia edit. The issue is about the length of time between the oldest reliable source and the newest reliable source.  We knew when the tornadoes appeared that we would likely get months of coverage, and probably years of coverage in the local media, out of this event.   And if we didn't, then we could always say, Ooops, that turned out to just be a flash in the pan, so let's delete it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The word enduring is misleading here.  Notorious incidents such as the handbag matter do, in fact, have enduring notability.  For example, it made it out of newspapers and into books such as this or that which were published years later.  What's really going on here is that topics are being attacked as trivial or lacking in importance and the idea of endurance in sources is just speculative wikilawyering to disguise the true nature of the objection.  15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to put too much of a mathematical spin on it, but its the best way I know how to describe this. If you plot "volume of reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of event" as "time since event" for any event, it will likely be a sharp rise at the start, and then tail off - long or short, it doesn't matter. We are looking for the cumulative sources over time (the area under the curve) to exceed some arbitrary threshold. Some events can pass that threshold within hours (Sept. 11 attacks, Japanese tsunami).  Other events, like this handbag one, seem like a slow simmer, in that the secondary aspects aren't there to start but the tail is quite long and subsequently passes that threshold years later. That's why its good to remember that there is always WikiNews to cover breaking events and if at such a time later the events are Wikipedia notability, that material can be brought it, so that the sourcing isn't lost.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiNews is a failure and so Google doesn't pay much attention to it. For example, the riots in Burma which appear In the news on Wikipedia are not covered there.  Wikipedia is the success and we should preserve and build upon it.  Deleting articles in a speculative hope that they might be recreated at some later time is disruptive and contrary to our editing policy.  The handbag matter is actually still covered in Wikipedia at 2006_Super_14_Final and so the AFD should have resulted in a merger, not deletion. Warden (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a failure in the fact that en.wiki doesn't do enough to stem off coverage of breaking events before they are notable. Now, before I go any further, I fully agree with when Jimmy Wales has praised the work of editors to have articles of decent coverage within a day of an event breaking (heck, I put my own hat into the ring to help build out Protests against SOPA and PIPA when that broke).  We just need editors to be a bit more realistic of what is realistically going to be notable event. National protests in a country? Sure. A major athlete striking another with a handbag? Not so much.  If the latter does become notable, great, let's get an article on it.  But in most cases, we should be looking to how WP:BLP1E is used and enforced: several of these events can actually be covered as part of a larger article to start with, and if they do become notable on their own, then break them out and expand. We obviously can't stop people from creating such articles, and we should try to retain as much as possible as well, but sometimes there's just nothing there to retain at all (as per WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events/archive). But of course, hindsight is 20/20, editors should be afraid that if they realize after the fact that an article on an event was deleted could have been included elsewhere to approach an admin to get userification as to recover sources and to put into the larger article.  Its just that I've found more recently at !voters at AFD often forget the "Redirect and merge" option for any topic, but that's not really an issue with notability. --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have been started on the talk pages for WP:NOT or WP:Notability (events)? And NOT states that bit is just for routine news coverage, and doesn't say to outright ignore it and wait to see if something will endure. Neither of those pages say things have to prove they can have enduring coverage to be notable. It list some events are notable, and some might not be. But that's a discussion for a different talk page.  D r e a m Focus  22:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem identified is that NOT and NEVENTS have "enduring", WP:N doesn't, and unless those two pages both change (doubtful) we need to make this change here. The idea applies to more than just events, too. Take a TV show that lasts all of three episodes before cancellation and is never heard from again. This doesn't make the TV show non-notable, but that does impact what type of coverage will likely be about any sub-aspects like episodes and characters, and whether it even makes sense to have articles about that. --M ASEM  (t) 22:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just went to find the supposed consensus for the current nutshell wording. It seems to be at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_48 where Unscintillating proposes a draft and one other editor agrees with him.  And that's supposed to be a binding consensus for the entire project?  And now you're wanting to change over a period of time back to enduring?  Laughable.  Meanwhile, on the front page of Wikipedia we promote the article 13 June 2012 Iraq attacks.  You can tell from its title how enduring it is - just yesterday.  The period of time required is just a single day.  It clearly doesn't matter whether you say enduring or period of time as they are both dead letters.  Nobody actually cares about the age of sources unless they are made obsolete by more recent ones.  What you're really trying to promote here is the idea of importance or significance and that is not based upon time or age. Warden (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "enduring"/"period of time" is a sliding scale based on the topic. Current events can be evaluated in hours; on the other hand, other topics may take months to years to determine if coverage is enduring.  Remember we have the problem that we have no article creation control short of NPP and they're not set or empowered to make notability determination.  Just because it got created doesn't mean it validates or invalidates the concept of enduring. --M ASEM  (t) 17:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just spotchecked several of the entries in Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism (which includes the above one) and they all have problems of lacking enduring notability; they technically all (those I checked) fail NOTNEWS as well. These are not appropriate but I noticed most of them also don't seem to have a large editor base as well, meaning they haven't been very visible. Merging to an article or set of articles documenting all but a few is fine, but separate ones for each is very much against several policies and guidelines. --M ASEM  (t) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is often considerable divergence of opinion regarding the notability of an article. One of the classic cases must be the article Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton which was nominated for deletion within hours of creation.  On the day of the wedding it took a quarter of a million hits! Martinvl (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

speedy incubate

 * I agree that en.wiki can do more to stem off coverage of breaking events before notability can be evaluated. An answer is the "Speedy incubate", which would be used to protect articles from AfD discussions while breaking-news events unfold.  A suggestion a while back was that the evaluation of the notability of a breaking news event requires the reports of the weekly news magazines, which pretty much means two weeks.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... could you expand on how this "Speedy incubate" might work? Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

coining
This word may be unique to Wikipedia and a coining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.214.127 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "notability", you mean? Well, not the word itself obviously, but it has certainly been put to an original specialized use on Wikipedia (which is not in itself a bad thing, though the guideline should make clear that this is what's happening). Victor Yus (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

changing the nutshell
A year or so ago, someone altered it to include Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time,

If a new species is discovered, or someone announces they have built a new type of spaceship, or a device that cured diseases, wouldn't that be instantly notable? How long is this "over a period of time" suppose to last exactly? When a major film is released to the theaters, can we not have an article on it, until after a period of time has passed to make certain it is notable? What about a new book that is on the bestsellers list and getting great reviews? Or a major scientific breakthrough that is covered by all the science journals and magazines as revolutionary? I'm not sure when that part was added, but I see no reason to have it. Consensus please. What does everyone think, leave it or take it out?  D r e a m Focus  18:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "someone" that altered it, it was a group of editors that discussed the issue over a period of time weeks .  It was wording to replace the word "enduring" that was inconsistent with the idea that notability is not temporary.  My previous post to this one at WP:Deletion review coincidentally cites "over a period of time" to argue that pre-event hype for a future sports event is ephemeral, thus failing the concept of "over a period of time".  The concept of how long is the period, is not the role of the nutshell, the nutshell just says that the concept is there.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do think we need something like this. It helps highlight that WP is not the right venue for reporting breaking news (per WP:NOTNEWS)... and it helps to distinguish short term "5 minutes of fame" notoriety from longer term notability.  Yes, you do have a point...there are exceptions... there are some some things that we know will be lastingly notable as soon as they are announced/are reported on. But a lot more things don't fit that exception.  The hard part is determining which things have mere short term notoriety and which have true lasting notability.
 * I suppose it comes down to this... I would prefer to have the policy err on the side of caution on this. It will never hurt the project if we wait a few days (or even a few weeks) before we write an article on something that recently occurred... if we wait until we are sure that the event, discovery, subject or topic is truly notable and not just "flash in the pan" notorious. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It will hurt the project if the person who was going to write an article about it loses interest and decides not to do it after all (or writes it and then it gets deleted). I really fail to understand the mindset of people on this page - you all seem more concerned about keeping information out of Wikipedia than putting it in, and to regard people who want to create articles as enemies who sometimes have to be reluctantly accommodated, rather than as the lifeblood of the project. Victor Yus (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you might not have grasped the basics of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Any day any time they can stick nonsense into it. Also it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not the Universal library where everything that is was or will be or might be is recorded in all the languages that might or might not ever exist. If the information is not stored elsewhere in an easy to access form via references then it should not be in Wikipedia. If people are not going to look after it after the first week it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. It needs to be information that is of lasting interest and be supported by reliable sources. Otherwise it will turn into a random page of the Universal library and be a total waste of time and space. Disinformation and noise reduces the information, it does not exists apart and not affect it. Searches turn up rubbish. Effort countering vandals is wasted. Slander is written into it and causes trouble. Good editors leave because they don't want to be associated with it. Notability is extremely important to Wikipedia, it is not all and everybody's scrap book. Dmcq (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is not necessary always about keeping information out but also aiding in proper organization of information into larger structures and avoiding WP:UNDUE coverage of smaller aspects. Just because a topic fails WP:N doesn't mean we can't cover it by putting it into a larger topic with better context. --M ASEM  (t) 13:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, searches don't turn up rubbish. It is highly unlikely you'd find anything if you didn't actively go looking for it.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "period of time" is definitely going to be a function of topic, and not universal. A person under BLP1E could be something that lasts for weeks or months, for example.  --M ASEM  (t) 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me to be another meaningless phrase that serves no purpose. In any case, this is supposed to be the page "in a nutshell" - a summary of what's on the page. If this concept of period of time (whatever it's supposed to mean) is sufficiently essential to be included in the nutshell, then it would certainly need to be addressed prominently somewhere within the page - within the main GNG section, I should have thought. Since it currently isn't, it doesn't yet belong in the nutshell. Victor Yus (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, it has its own section in the guideline ("Notability is not temporary"). --M ASEM (t) 13:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... notability is not temporary... or to put it another way, notability should not and does not fade over time. This means:
 * For something to be considered notable in the first place, it must not be temporary in nature.
 * Once it is considered notable, it remains notable.
 * These two concepts work in sync and are not actually mutually exclusive. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are only half right. Its notable at any period of time, then its notable now.  But most things are temporary in nature, since we don't see the Roman empire around anymore.  We have albums that get coverage now, but years from now no one may remember or talk about them at all.  So even things temporary in nature can be Wikipedia notable.   D r e a m Focus  19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Where in the article does it say what the nutshell says?  D r e a m Focus  18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP doesn't say anything other than some might challenge sources after a time to reevaluate the evidence. There is nothing in the article that says you should only have an article if it has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.  No mention of time is anywhere in there at all.   D r e a m Focus  19:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly... Masem seems to be mistaken in claiming that this nutshell phrase has its "own section" in the form of WP:NTEMP. The focus of that section (if you read it) appears to be something quite else, possily even the reverse of what the nutshell says. Victor Yus (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking a bit more on this... When it comes to Notability of events, I don't think the coverage of the event must be enduring... what must be enduring is the significance of the event. An event may be "of interest" for a few days, and thus make a brief splash in the media... but if it has no lasting significance then it isn't notable.  In a few rare cases, we can tell that the event will have lasting significance as soon as it occurs... but in most cases it can take days, weeks or even months to determine whether the event has any lasting significance.
 * The problem is that when it comes to current events people often assume that an event is vastly more important than it really is. We assume the event will have lasting significance (and thus rush off to write a Wikipedia article about it)... only to discover (after a bit of time has passed) that the event did not actually have much significance at all.
 * I think we need something in the guideline (and in the nutshell) that warns editors to be cautious in this regard. Don't assume lasting significance... make sure it exists before you write an article. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It says if it meets the GNG or the SSG and doesn't violate NOT then it gets an article. WP:NOTNEWS covers news events, and its in NOT.  There are subject specific guidelines for most things.   D r e a m Focus  23:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At one point NTEMP talked about the concept that is now captured more in the section on events. Regardless, the section on events still outline what the intent is, that a burst of news that disappears after a day isn't likely something that's going to be notable. --M ASEM (t) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Not news" is a good policy in spirit that's been really difficult to apply in practice. There are lots of topics that might justify a verifiable article, but might ultimately resemble a news report, because it's really about a brief window of controversy. You might even be able to find a list of bursts of coverage. But an article is something more than just a report of an event, or even an aggregate of events. Describing that has proven to be difficult, and indeed people can be too hasty to delete otherwise good material. But I do think the idea of "over a period of time" is important. I'd rather have something ambiguous that is applied through a discussion among editors than to have no standards at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you really mean "ambiguous", or "lacking in metrics"? Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a nutshell that says something like: "Wikipedia articles are about topics that are considered "notable". One of the ways of demonstrating the notability of a topic is to show that it has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This seems to be the main message of this page, as it is written. Victor Yus (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first problem is that the proposal promotes a confusion that the English word "notable" has the same meanings as what we mean by wp:notable. This leads to editors incorrectly arguing that a topic lacks fame or importance.  Secondly, "One of the ways" is just that, only one of the ways, we have dozens of paths to wp:notability.  As for the third part, wp:notability no longer requires independent reliable sources, only evidence, such that a wp:notable topic may or may not have sufficient material with which to write an encyclopedia article.  What is it that you are trying to fix with the current nutshell?  Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, precisely the issues you mentioned, I thought. Firstly I put the word in scare quotes to show that it has a special meaning here (addressing your first point). Secondly I included "one of the ways" to make clear that it is only one of the ways (addressing your second point). As to your third point, according to the body of the page, the sources do need to be independent and reliable (if it is this criterion that is being used to show notability), so we should make the same statement in the nutshell too (or change it in the body of the page first, if we think it's wrong). Victor Yus (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Unscintillating... "wp:notability no longer requires independent reliable sources..." huh? Sure it does... Please see he first paragraph of GNG.  Blueboar (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what Unscintillating is getting at is that, like WP:V, it is not about having the inline cites or the like, but as long as you have identified sources that support WP:N in the discussion of the article, then the sources have been shown to exist. This is a bit of a nuance to be working alongside WP:V in harmony, so I don't think we want to try to address it in the nutshell, but we absolutely want to talk having identified independent, significant coverage of a topic. --M ASEM (t) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, Winning notable awards even if you are boring or just don't do interviews, so you don't get a lot of media coverage, or noticed by the world at large, doesn't mean you can't have an article. You can meet the subject specific guidelines without getting "significant" attention or any real attention at all.  An example would be someone who made notable scientific breakthroughs, which are now mention in all textbooks on that subject, but which never had any information written about them.  It does happen.    D r e a m Focus  00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In what I guess is a case of silence not equaling agreement, I just reverted the removal of the nutshell. I've been loosely following this discussion, but did not comment until now, because I think it was a discussion amongst a fairly small group of editors that didn't seem to be really going anywhere. But if the decision is to simply delete the summary of a major policy, it needs more consensus than it has here. On the substance of it, I see no reason not to revise what the nutshell says, rather than remove it. If the issue is one of the period of time, I'm sure there are ways to say it more clearly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How would it be worded then?  Would it include the bit that is just repeated, only clearer, directly beneath it already?   D r e a m Focus  00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, some of the concern is about whether there are sources spread out over a period of time. Perhaps then, change "and over a period of time" to "and with interest continuing over a period of time". Another concern seems to be cases where an event is recent. Although I would rather not encourage recentism, and I think some other editors above feel that way too, one could also make it "and with interest continuing or expected to continue over a period of time". My low enthusiasm for the latter stems from WP:CRYSTAL, which is why I also have low enthusiasm for encouraging recentism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply after edit conflict: I don't see redundancy within the nutshell. And the point of any nutshell is to summarize what comes below in the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's the problem with the current nutshell - it doesn't do that, but introduces quite different ideas - more as an alternative statement for people who don't like what the page actually says. Is everyone OK with the version I proposed above? (To repeat: "Wikipedia articles are about topics that are considered "notable". One of the ways of demonstrating the notability of a topic is to show that it has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") Or if not, what's wrong with it? Victor Yus (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to have one at all. There is no way to accurately summarize things like that, you need the following paragraphs in the lead section to explain to anyone new at Wikipedia how it all works and what it means.  And they don't need significant coverage, they can get in by other means, such as notable awards and whatnot.  That's why we have subject specific guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  04:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "they can get in by other means, such as notable awards and whatnot"... which is what leads to notable coverage. That's a core aspect of every subject-specific notability guideline, that the criteria are selected that we can reasonably be assured that significant coverage will eventually come about. --M ASEM  (t) 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Coverage is only one way to prove something is notable.  Many notable subjects will NEVER receive any significant coverage at all.  That's why the subject specific guidelines exist.   D r e a m Focus  11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with this claim. If there is never any significant coverage, then you can't write an article.  And I mean can't, as in, it is not actually possible to write an article if no sources provide information about it.  It doesn't matter how hugely important the subject feels to you personally:  if the sources don't provide you with any more information than "Foo is a baz qux", then you've got (at most) a definition, not an encyclopedia article.  This is addressed at WHYN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that in order to demonstrate that something is notable for Wikipedia purposes, it is not always necessary to demonstrate significant coverage. Even without significant coverage (in the notability sense) you can still write an article - maybe a very short (but still useful) one, or maybe a longer one based on a single source or non-independent sources or something. There seem to be two schools of thought on this - (1) that certain types of things can always be assumed to have had significant coverage, even if we haven't found that coverage yet; (2) that certain types of things inherently belong in Wikipedia regardless of their coverage - but I don't see any need to resolve this philosophical dispute. We should be informing users about actual practice, which is (for whatever reason) that certain types of things are normally automatically considered "notable", without any reference to significant coverage, enduring or otherwise (we just need some reliable source to tell us that the thing really is of the type that it is claimed to be of). Victor Yus (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are simplifying practice too much; there are steps in logic and consideration that are necessary to make the practice of notability consistent across WP. Yes, it's simple to say "Topics about X are immediately notable", that's how mechanically they work, but that type of thinking gets us into OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and complaints from editors that their pet topic gets deleted while some topic noone cares about remains.
 * Notability is a tool to assure use that we can have significant encyclopedic coverage of a topic. That can be met easiest by actual demonstration of those sources (the GNG). But we have alternatives (the SNGs) that are criteria that if a topic meets these, there is likely an existing wealth of information about the topic already out there or a fairly safe assumption that information will come about. There's even cases (WP:OUTCOMES) that we immediately assume sources will be available for a limited set of topics like populated places.  So, no, it is not that we immediately have articles about topics because we assume them inheritely notable (we specifically say there is no such thing as inherited notability), but we do have logical shortcuts to get to notability.  Talking about notability in this fashion helps to rationale how we build out better criteria for notability in the future.  Yes, it is far easier to talk about it mechanically and make it stupid-simple to the editors, but notability is truly not that simple. It needs to be explained. --M ASEM  (t) 05:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We agree on that last statement, then. But you must also observe that the current version of this page, which you seem to cherish so much, does not explain it successfully. It doesn't say what you've just said, for example. (What you've just said is the philosophy I referred to as (1) - it seems to me there are quite a lot of people, at least out there building Wikipedia, who would actually embrace philosophy (2), so if we're going to make the page expound just one of these philosophies, we should perhaps check that it's the consensus. At the moment it doesn't expound either; it's just a logically challenged mess, kept in that sorry state by mindless reversion of any attempt to improve it.) Victor Yus (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (2) is wrong, because it directly contradicts WP:NRVE. But perhaps we should finally address that more explicitly.
 * If you don't have significant coverage—not "if you can;t find it easily, online, for free", but if that coverage doesn't exist because no independent reliable source has ever chosen to publish more than a sentence on the subject—then you can't write a neutral encyclopedia article. That's can't, as in impossible.  You might be able to write a perfectly good dictionary definition (in which case, get thee to Wiktionary), and you might be able to write a doomed, single-sentence WP:PERMASTUB, but you can't actually write an encyclopedia article that complies with our sourcing policies.
 * I agree with you, though, that you don't have to demonstrate wiki-notability, unless and until an article is challenged. We are all willing to assume notability for many types of subjects (places and species, for example), even without any proof of notability being provided.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you take the view that notability means the existence of enough sourced material to write an article of decent length? That sounds attractive, but I think it's not how many people think of it. I suspect that if I wrote a long article on an unremarkable local councillor based on local newspaper reports, it would still be deleted, with the local news coverage dismissed as "routine" or something like that. I would even agree with that; there is simply too much reliably sourced information in the world for Wikipedia to attempt to include all of it, and the notability concept should be used to filter that information, not merely to eliminate unfeasible topic titles from the database. Victor Yus (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Does notability mean the existence of enough information to write an article? Absolutely it does, and that is all it does, as an indicator.  Subject first to actual inclusion policies, WP:NOT & WP:BLP. Many people don't see it, true, but they are confused, and they confuse. Regarding your local councillor, if you can write non trivial content based on independent secondary sources, then it will not be deleted.  Check the meaning of secondary source.  Note that a newspaper "report" is unlikely to be a "secondary source" (if it were, you'd call it a "newspaper story"). Note that WP:N is only about whether the subject gets a standalone article, not whether it gets to be included at all.  Asteroids, headlands, old roads, pokemon, all belong merged into a broader article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But information on specific topics is more liable to be trimmed back in a broader article than it would be in articles dedicated to those topics (see the other thread I just replied in). Also this thing about "secondary sources" is just what I mean ("routine or something like that"). Many Wikipedia articles are based on newspaper reports/stories/articles and that's considered just fine; noone raises the technical and largely misplaced question of whether these sources are secondary. But if someone wrote a well-sourced article on a topic that we don't as a rule consider notable, like local councillors, using the kind of material that routinely exists for such topics, like local press reporting, then non-secondariness or something would be introduced (by way of a wikilegal fiction) to delete the article. Victor Yus (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your hypothetical doesn't exist because it is a contradiction. A "well sourced" article complies with WP:PSTS. The trouble I think you are having is with the nature of newspaper content. Newspapers, and all media, contains a mix of primary source material and secondary source material, though easily distinguish with skill, and typically delineated. The front pages and notices are primary source material. The editorials, commentary, feature stories and general interest stories are secondary source material. If your councillor has no secondary source material written about him, then he is not notable. If you are collecting a range of facts without sourced commentary, then you are doing original research. This is the difficult boundary region, because if the only sources are newspapers, then your article is barely notable. It is also a very common problem, because newspaper content is for many the easiest source material to access. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you call "original research" is practised on Wikipedia all the time, and is probably part of what makes it great. The "rules" you refer to are not generally enforced (fortunately), and are just the sort of thing that would be wheeled out selectively to eliminate topics that are felt (for other reasons) not to belong. This is my personal impression, anyway. Victor Yus (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, original research happens. Actually, WP:NOR is not absolute.  Some editor input is needed in editing.  There is a balance, though the line is closer to allowing no editor reasoning of the facts. The “rules” are haphazardly enforced, but I won’t agree that the enforcement is selective.  Not selective in that some are following a hidden rule.  There is bias, in that the rules are enforced on high traffic pages, and on pages that provoke a response.  I’ve been watching for years, and I think this problem is much less bad than it used to be. The relevance here, at WP:N, is that if there is no sourced commentary, no sourced processing of transorfmation of basic facts, then there is no content to write based on sources.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with no nutshell too. We seem to waste a lot of time talking about nutshells (it was the same recently on the sports notability page) when they aren't necessary - the essence of the page ought be conveyed anyway by the opening paragraphs. The nutshell box just adds to the general mess that for some reason people want to put at the top of "guideline" pages (I presume in order to impair their usability a little more). But if we have a nutshell, then my version makes clear (I think) that showing significant coverage is one of the ways of showing notability - i.e. there are others as well - but this is the one that's expounded on this page (the one we're summarizing). And it doesn't go into what notability actually is, which appears to be a philosophical imponderable, but just how we demonstrate it for practical purposes. Victor Yus (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of years of wikilaywering that the current nutshell is written to address and prevent from happening. People don't like it when they can't find a way for their pet topic to be included, or when a topic they don't like is included.  The changes suggested wreck that established practice, even if you think you're making the language easier.  PEople will use the exact language to fight against or for deletion by notability. It is a boat that is ready to tip with the slightest change. --M ASEM  (t) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So zero nutshell, then? There's no way even the most determined wikilawyer could use that as a weapon. Victor Yus (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we need the nutshell so we can summarize the page. The language in it has worked for years without change, there's no  need to alter that. --M ASEM  (t) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. On what basis do you claim the language has "worked"? And if the nutshell fails to summarize the page (as is clearly the case) then it must go, or be changed so that it does summarize the page. Millions of Wikipedia articles have no nutshell, so we clearly don't need one here. Victor Yus (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase "over a period of time" should go from the nutshell as it directly contradicts the body of the article which says "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This latter concept that notability does not expire is well-established in my experience so is our actual practise.  There are numerous historical topics which no longer receive much current attention and I often find myself working with antique sources for topics like this, e.g. Balthazar Francolini; Meritas (cloth); Stanhope lens; &c.  The key point about notability is that we require sources.  It doesn't matter how old those sources are or how long they remained in print. Warden (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No its not in contradiction if you have read the above. There are two time scales that are at work here. One is the scale used to determine if the coverage of a topic over a period of time is sufficiently long, relative to that topic, to merit an article.  That bound has to be passed first.  Once a topic is notable, then the second time scale enters play, and that is where "notability is not temporary" is applied: just because it happened a century ago and no sources regularly cover the topic today doesn't mean that its not notable, assuming that the sources a century ago did give enough coverage to make it notable.   The point of issue is to make sure it is clear that the first time scale, the initial burst of coverage, is sufficiently long-tailed to bring about more than just primary sources that talk about it and avoid the routine coverage. --M ASEM  (t) 14:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the guideline says nothing about such timescales. Your talk of long tails just seems to be your personal opinion which is not supported by the guideline nor by our actual practise.  Our actual practise is to report breaking news as you can see every day on the main page in the section In the news.  For example, right now we have "The United Nations evacuates non-essential staff from Burma's Rakhine State after riots kill at least seven people..  The relevant article is 2012 Rakhine State riots and there's no way that such a topic can establish a long tail as it has only just happened.  Our guidelines must reflect actual practise as they are not prescriptive. Warden (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The length of the long tail is going to be different for different topics, and typically relative to the time scale that is involved with that topic. An event may only need a day or so to establish itself that the event is notable and having significant impact. It may take several years for other topics, such as for people and published works. Given that events are the part that is generally the trickiest in application here, the way I look at them is that coverage of events begin with a surge of primary coverage (explaining what just happened, eyewitness reports, etc.)  If the event was routine, that surge would die out with a short tail and with almost no secondary/transformative coverage appearing. But in the case of a notable event, there is a second surge of sourcing from secondary materials that may not be as numerous as the primary source surge, but a surge nevertheless. That curve of secondary sources will have a much longer tail than the primary sources, typically. As long as either the initial volume of secondary sources is sufficiently large, or the tail on secondary sources is long enough, we'll consider that event notable. Yes, there is nothing in policy/guideline that explicitly sources that, but that's a way of envisioning how best to evaluate short term events, and how the aspect of "notability is not temporary"/"notability requires enduring coverage" work with each other, not against themselves. --M ASEM  (t) 15:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If a period of a day is enough to establish notability then the concept is quite useless as even Twitter posts last longer than a day. The nutshell should contain the hard kernel of the guideline so that it is a succinct and clear summary.   Fuzzy waffle which is of no practical use should be discarded per WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only a day or so for breaking events, not every topic on WP, so it's not useless, but not easy to explain in 5 or 6 works. The idea of coverage for "a period of time" is the essence of it, but there are nuances that the reader must go further to understand. I agree we don't want to trample the idea of "notability is not temporary" and maybe that part needs to be added to counter what seemingly is a statement against it. --M ASEM  (t) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just remove all of it. If people want to understand it, they need to read the page. But the GNG, which is the essence of this page, makes no mention of "over a period of time", so it's ridiculous to suggest that it's essential that the nutshell (which is the essence of the page boiled down even further) must do so. Victor Yus (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just for avoidance of doubt, I don't believe anyone will understand this topic by reading the page either, though it might answer a few questions. The whole page, in combination with the other notability guidelines, is in a scandalous state - the amount of contradiction, ambiguity and plain meaninglessness is staggering, and the fact that no-one except me seems to care about that is even staggering-er.) Victor Yus (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just apply to the GNG, the time factor applies to all forms of demonstrating notability. Subject-specific guidelines should be based on evidence that ultimately points to enduring coverage, as opposed to only a brief burst of coverage from one period in time. There's a reason that WP:BLP1E exists, based on this same logic.  Remember, the GNG is a subsection of this page, this is about the concept of notability in general. --M ASEM  (t) 19:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just expounding your personal philosophy. It doesn't say any of this on the page, so it certainly has no business being in the nutshell. Victor Yus (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a long long long long long long history around notability that is very difficult to document. Unless you have been in those discussions, its very hard to explain why these things work this way. It is not personal belief, however, that I'm saying; this is standard unwritten practice. --M ASEM  (t) 21:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "standard unwritten practice". And no matter how many times you repeat something doesn't make it true.  The subject specific guidelines were created because things can be notable without meeting the general notability guidelines ever.   D r e a m Focus  22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of unwritten practice that goes on around WP; new policies and guidelines are created usually because an unstated practice has been challenged or well-established and editors agree its time to document it. As for the subject-specific guidelines, the criteria are not created in a vacuum. Criteria are to be selected that we have reasonable assurance in time that secondary sources will eventually come about as to write a good encyclopedic article on the topic, but we apply no deadline to meeting that. However, there are still criteria that can generate a lot of false positives (I think PORNBIO just had a major revamping due to this, as well as NSPORTS) and these criteria are then typically removed. --M ASEM  (t) 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you now admit this practice is unwritten, it can't therefore be written on this page, and therefore doesn't belong in a summary of what's written on this page. Victor Yus (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OR you write it down as to document it. --M ASEM (t) 05:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, although on the surface there seems to be no consensus about it. Victor Yus (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm seeing most people agreeing that the nutshell is listing information that is NOT anywhere on the guideline page. Some of us want to eliminate the nutshell entirely, since the first part of the article explains everything much better. One editor is determined that, despite the outcome of many AFDs over the years, and what is actually written on the page, that things must have "enduring coverage". No sense in dragging this out when everyone will just keep repeating themselves without anyone ever convincing the other. Lets do a strawpoll to settle this.  D r e a m Focus  22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It sure looks to me like the discussion above is a lot of verbiage going nowhere. I have no problem with leaving the nutshell as it is now, so it isn't a case of just one editor, not by a longshot. Those who are making a hobby of parsing the arguments for change may, perhaps, wish to consider how to get away from stalemate. (1) Stop insisting that the nutshell cannot be fixed and must be completely deleted. (2) Engage with suggestions for revised wording. It's not like those suggestions haven't been made, just that someone always changes the subject whenever a concrete suggestion comes up. (3) Focus the discussion on the best choice of words, not abstract philosophical principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made a suggestion to adding to the nutshell that got lost. In that after "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", we need to say something to the extent that "but once this is met, the topic remains notable indefinitely". --M ASEM  (t) 22:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even more, I've looked over the WP:N as it stands and see basically 3 problems.
 * Nutshell doesn't discuss "N is not temp" aspect but does discuss the enduring aspect.
 * "Enduring" coverage is not at all talked about at least in an explicit section. This needs to be its own section. It needs to be about cutting through an initial burst of news and routine reporting to look for the long tail of sourcing that we want, which can take from hours to years to be apparent.
 * the "N is not temporary" section needs to be updated to be made the counterargument to the enduring section in that you can't lose notability once you've shown it (we assume sources remain permanent and therefore will always be there). Also the section that points to BLP1E needs to be up in the Enduring section since that's more applicable there.   --M ASEM  (t) 22:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I believe the editors of the Nutshell were trying to say is that over time, the readers number of readers consulting the article should plateau out to a non-zero number with, ideally, a few hits every day. We need a wording that reflects this. Martinvl (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see reason to think they were trying to say that, or even anything like it. Victor Yus (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Strawpoll
Please keep the endless debating in the section above, and just state what you support. Obviously, if there isn't enough support to remove it entirely, there may be to remove parts of it, so vote in each section please so consensus can be determined.

1. Remove over a period of time from the nutshell.
 * Support  D r e a m Focus  22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Remove —those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time from the nutshell.
 * Support  D r e a m Focus  22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Remove the nutshell altogether.
 * Support  D r e a m Focus  22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Keep the nutshell unchanged.
 * Support The current nutshell was the result of a consensus that took weeks to establish.  It was a consensus that we should replace the word "enduring" as overstating the time dependency of notability.  There may be other language that would be equally acceptable.  "Over a period of time" means that initially, sources that are otherwise reliable can be disregarded as part of WP:NOT because the attention being given to the event may be transitory or ephemeral.  Newspapers report material all of the time that from the viewpoint of history are statistics, not wp:notable.  The encyclopedia needs the perspective of history to judge the difference between a statistic and something wp:notable.  Even if it is hard to draw the line, we can agree that the line exists.  It is not the role of the nutshell to tell how to draw this line, this role is that of the guidelines, only one of which is listed on the WP:N page.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really; there are many things that we know straight off are going to be notable. We are not stupid. (And in many cases notability doesn't result from any amount of "coverage" at all, but from other reasons - there seems to be no consensus on the philosophical point of whether these other reasons impart notability in themselves or whether they simply provide evidence that "coverage" will somewhere or sometime exist). And in any case, as I keep saying, the role of the nutshell is to summarize what's on the page, not to add extra information about alleged "unwritten practice". Victor Yus (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The nutshell is relevant for 99.99% of the cases, weakening the wording to accomodate things which people "know straight off are going to be notable" is not needed. It is evident that an AfD of something recent but very obviously notable will comfortably survive regardless of the nutshell. Aside, the example is very poor, thousands of new species are discovered each year, two new species a week were discovered from 1998 to 2008 in New Guinea alone: , I think these thousands of animals are not necessarily notable. . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

5. Close this straw poll, because polls are evil.
 * Support. I see a lot of circular discussion without consensus, just people talking at one another instead of with one another. Unless someone comes up with something that gets traction, there is no consensus to change the policy page. The reason we keep having discussions about nutshells is that the same few editors keep initiating these discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never initiated this discussion before. I don't recall seeing this discussion previously either.   D r e a m Focus  22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right about that. I realize that in context it sounded like I was aiming that at you, and I apologize for that. Actually, I've seen at least one other editor in this discussion who has argued for nutshell deletion at other pages that I watch. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Me, presumably? (Only one page, as I recall, but still.) And in what way is that relevant? Victor Yus (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I think it's very relevant that, once we stopped wasting time discussing whether to remove the nutshell, we had a very productive discussion that led to a good revision of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I've tried to initiate such a productive discussion here, by proposing an alternative nutshell (that noone has yet identified anything wrong with). But we do need to be sufficiently open-minded to realize that having no nutshell is a perfectly good alternative; these things are honestly not necessary for anything, and their utility is negative if they actually mislead people as to what's written on the page instead of summarizing it. Victor Yus (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is sweeping the problem under the table. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't closing the poll instead of letting everyone have time to have their say be sweeping the problem under the table, instead of seeing what people support or oppose?  D r e a m Focus  22:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: this is supposed to be a discussion page, not a voting page. Haven't seen anyone articulate a reason why this guideline doesn't reflect best practice. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: this will just lead to people writing nonsense and putting the words "Support" and "Oppose" before it, and that will then be taken as carrying weight, however absurd the arguments are shown to be. We should continue discussing, but people need to listen to each other and accept that what others' say might be at least partly right, not put their fingers in their ears and then say "I haven't heard any reason for changing things". The problem here is not really with the nutshell, but with nearly all of the page, and other related pages as well. Notability is simply not documented in a way that people have a fair chance of understanding; and it quite easily could be (provided people don't try to force their own philosophies into the guidelines). Victor Yus (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert to the version of two years ago. Subsequent changes have made it less clear and less useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove the part about notability not applying to article contents. I think I added that sometime in the last two years, after observing widespread confusion over that point. (people declaring facts within articles notable or non-notable) Gigs (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised people don't want a strawpoll. Best way to gauge what everyone wants. No one is going to read all of that text up there, the argument getting too long.  The chances of getting everyone to agree on anything on Wikipedia, is virtually impossible, and has been for years.  So the discussion will just drag on endless and nothing gets done.   D r e a m Focus  00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing will get done after a strawpoll either (unless magically everyone suddenly agrees, despite having been at each other's rhetorical throats earlier). And what people "want" should not come into it - it's what they are capable of arguing cogently for. Victor Yus (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Page View Statistics
If an article whose notablility is questioned has been around for a some time, would the number of times the article is viewed be a guide to notablility? I am thinking in particular of a locality in South Africa that has lent its name local folk-lore, but which is virtually unknown outside South Africa. Every few months a Wikipedia Editor who has no first-hand knowledge of South Africa tries to speedily delete the article. Rather than having to regularly enter into a long defence of the article, I would like to say "This article has been viewed on average 20 times a day every day. It must therefore, regardless of the Wikipedia guidelines, carry at least some notability".

I would like to add the following paragrpah to the section "Notability requires verifiable evidence":
 * If an article has been in Wikipedia for some time, the number of times that it has been viewed is a guide to its notability regardless of any other criteria. If this number is large compared to what would be expected from that article, the reason for its popularity should be ascertained before it is deleted.
 * If an article has been in Wikipedia for some time, the number of times that it has been viewed may also be taken into consideration as an indicator of notability, especially if the article does not fit into any existing categories.

Any comments?


 * Oppose - too easy to manipulate. Page view statistics merely tell us how many times someone look at an article ... they do not tell us whether the topic of the article is Notable.  The page view statistics don't even tell us how many people look at the page... as multiple "views" could be created by one person.   If we adopted your proposal, some obscure non-notable band could manufacture "notability" for itself manipulating the view count... for example by asking its 50 fans to log into Wikipedia each day, and repeatedly open and close the article, the view count would quickly rise to several hundred "views" each day.  Yet there are still only 50 fans and the band remains obscure and non-notable.
 * No, Notability can only be determined looking at a combination of the amount and depth of coverage in sources outside of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose - What people believe WP should be is vastly different from what WP aspires to be; as such, topics that shouldn't get coverage or as much coverage in WP get plenty of page hits while fundamentally core WP topics may only get a few hits per day. --M ASEM  (t) 16:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the proposal. Martinvl (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not acceptable. --M ASEM (t) 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable enough to me. If there's something that people are expecting Wikipedia to tell them about, and if it's something that we can (reaonsably reliably) tell them about, then we do them a service by telling them about it. Of course this is only one of many criteria, but it seems a potentially significant one (in cases where there's no reason to suspect the kind of manipulation described above). I'd rather the content of Wikipedia were driven at least to some extent by the people who use it, rather than just by people like us sitting here abstractly pontificating. Ultimately there is no Wikipedia "aspiring" to be anything; there are just different groups of people with different beliefs about what Wikipedia should be. Victor Yus (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We used to be that, pre 2006. There's a reason we moved away from that. --M ASEM  (t) 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What happened in 2006? Victor Yus (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's when the idea of using notability for article inclusion came about. Before that, people would add whatever they wanted, and that made WP a pop culture mess than an encyclopedia. --M ASEM (t) 05:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But people still add whatever they want, don't they (just that now we have another group of people try to delete whatever they don't want). Was there ever a time when Wikipedia took the interests of its readers into account, as this proposal is suggesting? Victor Yus (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png the readers think they want, and what the Foundation wants, are two directly opposing goals. Which one is paying for our server space? --M ASEM  (t) 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you reach that conclusion? How do you think you know what either the readers, or the Foundation, want(s)? (And as to your question, it's the donors who pay both for the server space and Foundation salaries. I'm guessing most donors are readers.) Victor Yus (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Foundation has made it clear what they want via their mission. As for readers, those that do donate are most likely donating to keep the work improving in the direction that we are taking it. I would suspect that the average representation of readers that are donors is far far different from the average reader in general.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * None of this, as far as I can see, provides any reason to reject out of hand the significance of the information that we do have about what readers want. Certainly not the Foundation's mission, which says nothing about notability except what anyone might care to read into it (more impressive is the vision, which talks of free access to the sum of all knowledge - which if it means anything, certainly seems to cast notability restrictions out of the window). And I hope you're not suggesting that we should deliberately skew our information towards things that wealthier people are interested in, so as to increase donations? Victor Yus (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "sum of all knowledge" is a fallacy. WP is a tertiary source: that means we summarize information for educational purposes. Our top pages should not look like the same lists for Google's top page searches, if we were being used as an educational resource by readers, but unfortunately this tends to be the case ( from 2010, once you get past the first 20 or entries on WP-specific pages). This is not saying we can't cover popular topics, but we cover them in the same manner that we cover less popular ones, and in similar fashion. Now, real world popularity can lead to notability because of increased media attention to that matter due to the increase in popularity, but because nearly everyone on WP is built on the idea of summarizing sources as an encyclopedia, we can't take page view counts on WP as any indication of sourcing.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not as an indication of sourcing, no, but as an indication that the topic is one that Wikipedia can usefully serve people by covering. Given that, as you observe, we can't actually present the sum of all knowledge, or even the sum of all "verifiable" knowledge, we have to be selective in what we try to include. Of course there are many criteria that we should use in deciding how to make such a selection, but user interest is surely one of them. The problem is quantifying it, as we all acknowledge, but to the extent that it is possible to do so, this is actually a far more valuable criterion than media attention (which doesn't really mean anything for Wikipedia's usefulness, beyond what we can infer from it in terms of expected user interest). Victor Yus (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's goal is not providing readers with everything they want. Its goal is to provide only encyclopedic material.  People want funny top ten lists and recommendations about which car to buy, but they'll have to go elsewhere for that.  NB that "the sum of all knowledge" is the goal for all the WMF projects taken as a whole, not the goal solely for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is only supposed to supply the encyclopedic parts of that equation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if something has information which is "reasonably reliable", that already means it is notable. That is, if an article is based on reliable, trustworthy sources and the information can be verified, then the subject of the article meets minimum notability standards.  If we can't verify, independently, anything of importance in the article, then what is the point of having the article in the first place?  -- Jayron  32  05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * General view seems to be otherwise; that notability is an additional requirement over and above verifiability. I can (fictionally) provide lots of verifiable information about my band Vicward, based on an article about it that appeared last week in our extremely well repected local newspaper, but it's still not what Wikipedia calls notable. Victor Yus (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Point of order... Verifiability is the basic inclusion criteria for information (ie specific statements within an article)... notability is the inclusion criteria for topics (ie entire articles). In other words one is not "over and above" the other... they are different standards that relate to different things. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that; what I wrote was intended as shorthand for "notability is an additional requirement over and above the existence of some verifiable information on the topic" (by way of disputing what Jayron32 wrote, which seemed to be implying that once you have something verifiable to write on the topic, then you can be sure it's notable, though admittedly that might not be exactly what was meant). Victor Yus (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The English language version of Wikipedia serves many communities including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where English is the mother tongue of almost the entire population, Canada and South Africa where English is understood by almost everybody and is the mother tongue of a significant proportion of the population, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe etc where English is an official language and the lingua franca, although only mother tongue to a minority of the population. My concern is that something which might well be notable in one of the smaller communities, but poorly documented, needs some other way of demonstrating its notability to editors who are not members of that community. I was proposing hit count as something that can be taken into consideration. Does anybody have suggestions of anything else that can be used to "protect" the interests of these communities? Martinvl (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually en.wp serves a global community far beyond those areas with (native) English speakers, since English is an international lingua franca of sorts as well. As far as the interests of smaller subcommunities are concerned, they have the option to rely on local English or non English sources. Sufficient media coverage doesn't mean necessarily mean global media coverage or coverage in non-English speaking media. If something receives a certain amount of national (or even (larger) regional coverage) it is relevant, independent of whether it is reported in the international news or US news (as the largest English speaking community) or not. However things being very poorly documented in general may have no place in en.wp as they conflict with general policies (regarding verification, reliable sourcing, established knowledge, etc.). However poorly documented things (like by oral tradition only) may have a place in some smaller non-English wikipedias. There have been discussions regarding that, but that's primarily a decision of those smaller wikipedias and of no concern here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what happens if that community either does not have a Wiki of its own or if they would like coverage outside their own language? Martinvl (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They obviously need to follow the rules of en.wp. We're not a webspace provider or a publication tool, but we have a rather specific project goal, that is collection the world's established (and notable), verifiable knowledge based on reliable sources. (Desirable) things beyond that scope have no place in WP. At this point, it might also worth to point out, that we cannot simply consider the wishes of the particular readers of individual articles only but bit we need to consider the wishes of the readership as a whole. The latter might expect en.wp sticking to certain standards for all its articles, at least I for one do (as a reader).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose easy to manipulate in principle and hence such a rule is an invitation for manipulation. Also it deviates from a general scheme that WP is based on what reliable external sources say.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule, it says that something may be taken into consideration. Of course something may be taken into consideration anyway (we don't have to give people permission to consider things), but it may be useful to mention it in the guideline, at least to counteract the rather absurd view that some people seem to have, that Wikipedia editors should ignore the interests of their readers when deciding what information to include. Victor Yus (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see why having the readers interest in mind suggests to consult page view statistics, since its vulnerability to manipulation, it might turn out to serve anything but the readers' interest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, these things need to be taken with a pinch of salt and common sense, like all things, but if there is no reason to suppose there are fanatics about, we can treat the statistics as reasonably informative. (And even if fanatics succeed in manipulating the occasional non-notable-topic article into Wikipedia, it's no big deal - better than having a topic of genuine interest deleted). Victor Yus (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've never heard of the Colbert bump or the 4chan/reddit (formerly slashdot) effect? Page view stats are so easily manipulated if attention is brought to that fact. --M ASEM (t) 12:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have acknowledged that a couple of times already. There is also WP:Assume good faith - we don't assume a priori that everyone's out to manipulate evidence. Victor Yus (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF only works for stuff internal to WP. We know there exists malicious groups external to WP that would love nothing more to cause disruption, and can be extremely subtle about it.  Any type of acknowledgement of page view count as a form of notability will be abused by external groups, AGF be damned. The only useful place internal to WP is how many page view counts that articles get after a main page feature (Today's FA, ITN, DYK, etc.) to help tailor how that page should be presented, but that's not going to affect article inclusion. --M ASEM  (t) 13:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We even know that there are "malicious" groups within WP. However we assume that there overall number are rather small, hence we assume good faith towards an average or random editor.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to take a very bleak view of the world. We can surely distinguish between articles that are likely to be the focus of malicious groups (assuming that attempting to get borderline-notable topics inculded in Wikipedia can be called "malicious") and those that aren't, and tailor accordingly the weight that we attach to page view stats? Victor Yus (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No we can't, absent of any other ways to distinguish them or some external evidence that something is happening, given the way some of these groups operate. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are ways. If an article get exactly 40 hits a day every day, I would suspect that something is wrong.  Statisticians often use the Chi-squared test to identify results that are "too good to be true". Martinvl (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And spammers can use the Chi-squared test to make sure that their page viewing is sufficiently variable to make the article pass the test. There is nothing we can do along these lines that can't be deliberately thwarted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are also ways to verify content without citing sources, nevertheless aside from a very few exception we don't pursue such approaches in WP. Similarly there are ways to "verify" page views with some certainty, but that doesn't really imply that WP should use such approaches. I find it hard to imagine convincing cases, where the all conventional arguments for notability fail, but only page views prevail and without that I see no reason to resort to them. Editors are free to consult page view personally but we should not sanction them here as one of the "official" ways to assess notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The notability argument on Wikipedia has gotten terribly out of hand. Good articles are getting deleted even when there is plenty of notability on the subject. I know of pages that have peaked at 360,000+ views in a day and from there averaged between 2,000 and 10,000 a day that have gotten deleted by the deletionist crowd. It is quite ridiculous that they can put fourth some arbitrary argument about "notability" when a page gets more views than 95% of the articles on the encyclopedia. Notability is what people make of it. And if a page peaks at 360,000 views in a day, then clearly the people collectively find it notable, regardless of what a few people say who want to get it deleted. Gamezero  05  02:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So the same argument should say we should delete articles with less than X pageviews a day? Sorry, doesn't work.  I would access that if there's 300,000 views a day on a page that someone out there had described what the interest is in that topic on that page and thus we can talk about sourcing, but this is way too abusable and would break WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. --M ASEM  (t) 02:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying delete pages with little views. That was a straw-man argument you just made if I've ever seen one. If those articles have sufficient sourcing, then it shouldn't matter if hardly anybody views them. HOWEVER, if an article has thousands upon thousands of views, then I think it should be automatically considered notable. A group of editors winning an afd debate by using a bunch of wiki-jargon to support their want for deletion should NOT trump thousands of page views. I think page views are absolutely a good reason to STRENGTHEN an argument to keep an article. The number of age views is NOT a good argument for deletion. Gamezero  05  03:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a good argument for inclusion either if the article is at odds with other guidelines - namely the one listed above.Thousand of page views about which we have no further information should certainly not well versed arguments based on project guidelines. And yes there people who (mindlessly) use "jargon" to get articles deleted, but in such cases you usually don't need page views to disprove them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the Wikipedia guidelines are being abused by editors following them to a T... to a fault. They use all of these rules and it clouds their common sense. I think articles should be judged on a case-by-case basis and the Wikipedia guidelines should not be hard rules. Wikipedia guidelines can be used effectively for most articles, but for those with thousands upon thousands of views, I think common sense should prevail, regardless of what any guideline states. A lot of page views should STRENGTHEN the argument for notability, while a lack of page views does not weaken the argument for notability. Editors often get into "jargon wars" because the Wikipedia guidelines are open to debate, and nit-picking. But something that is indisputable is the amount page views. Page views are a hard fact. Something that can be used to strengthen an argument of notability. Gamezero  05  03:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what I'm saying is that I'm aware of that abuse and that we don't need page view statistics to counter it. In particularly not since page view statistics will easily become a subject of abuse as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is designed to assure articles will meet the 5 pillars, and specifically that there will be third-party sources to meet the core content policies. How do pageview counts assure that?  There is no gaming here, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a popular topic guide. --M ASEM  (t) 03:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, well let me give more specific examples. I'm sure you've seen me around the MMA debates. I've seen you around a little. I just visited your profile and noticed you worked on a bunch of video game articles. Ok, so let's look at the sources for those. Let's pick a random one like "Crush". It is a good article. Lots of information. But when we look at the sources, they are ALL from video game specific websites. A bunch of those articles are featured articles, and the sources are video game specific sources. Now, let's compare that to MMA. UFC articles have been getting deleted because they have "MMA specific sourcing". Meaning, the sources are from news sources that report only on MMA such as MMAfighting.com. So my question is... how do video games get away with that and MMA articles can't? I even have people arguing with me when articles have sources from the LA Times, USA Today, Las Vegas Sun, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Yahoo, etc. because they call it "routine". Many of these UFC articles have thousands upon thousands of page views, and have the independent sources mentioned above. I see no reason why these should be deleted, yet they are deleted left and right.  Gamezero  05  03:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument, but the reason why we have video games like that is that they are secondary sources, required by WP:NOR/WP:NPOV. Sources that just recap an event are primary and not appropriate. Again we are a not a newspaper, not a source of statistics, and not an indiscriminately collection of information. Notability, not page view count, assure that these are met. --M ASEM  (t) 03:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, that isn't true. There is much more than simply results. Secondly, most of the sources in those video game articles are simply reviews of the game... which is basically like results. Sports by it's very nature is made up of results. The equivalent of "results" for video games is "reviews". Sports are put in an unfair position due to the nature of what they are. How is somebody going to review a sports event? Plus, there are plenty of things in encyclopedias that rely only on primary sources. Since when does somebody else have to have an opinion written down in a newspaper to make it notable? What kind of stuff is that? Something is notable because people find it notable... not because Joe Schmo wrote his opinion on it in some book or newspaper. Gamezero  05  04:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From the UFC/MMA articles I've seen, they are strictly recaps and primary sourcing, excluding some of the championship results, because there's little long-term effects on the sport. There's a reason why the same arguments you could use to cover every single regular season game from the MLB, NFL, or NBA are not used to create articles for these.  Yes, they would be popular, yes, they would have coverage, but in the overall scheme of things, they just aren't significant in the encyclopedic nature. Secondary sources doesn't have to be a review, but it has to be transformative in some way.  It may be an event or match that changed the tide for a team or player due to what happened, but a secondary source needs to note that, for example.  And the other thing we need to remember is that WP is not the end-all, be-all of websites; we are NOT meant to be everything, but a summary.  There's other ways for topics that are popular but not encyclopedic to be covered in a wiki format, much less other means. --M ASEM  (t) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say that, contrary to orthodox thinking, I believe OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is en extremely valid argument, potentially far stronger than WP:NXYZ. As we know, the WP:XYZ guidelines are only attempted and imperfect descriptions of Wikipedia practices. Looking at what articles actually do exist (and I mean more than just isolated examples, as these may just be blips) gives us in some way more reliable information about Wikipedia practice than the guidelines do. Particularly in the field of notability, where the guidelines are usually barely comprehensible. Victor Yus (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you are entitled to hold an opinion. However, I do hope you understand that the consensus of the community has long been that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument.  Our policies and guidelines should be based on what the community consensus actually is, not what we wish it were. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did acknowledge that I was challenging the orthodoxy... But if that's the best you can come up with by way of an "argument", then looks like I might be right. Victor Yus (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify in case I get taken literally again, I don't believe that typing the letters "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is a valid argument; I believe that the type of argument that people habitually counter by typing the letters "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is quite likely a valid argument, possibly even more so than arguments based on the assertion (even if true) that one's position is supported by the wording of WP:XYZ (for some XYZ). Victor Yus (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When people toss out "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" without any additional clarification, that's usually the point where the argument is ignored. On the other hand, if you say (and using MMA as the example) "Well, every major event in sport X has an article, but our MMA articles, which has numerous similar features to X, there's a discrepancy/bias." (please note: I am not saying this is the case for MMA).  That should prompt how the two cases are different in line with policy, and if they aren't, a re-evalation of the previous article if its found that a bias might exist.  Now, the argument here is that MMA articles get X views/day and thus should be kept, but nowhere in our policy do we base inclusion on popularity and infact warn against that (that leads to systematic bias in the first place).  Thus "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS *and* this article gets more page views" is still a failing argument. --M ASEM  (t) 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The failure in your argument is the assumption that everything has to be based on "policy". This way of thinking is screwing up Wikipedia (particularly given how badly and ad hoc-ly written the "policies" are). Victor Yus (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, everything has to be based on policy. It assures uniformity among how we write articles and incorporate information. Even if it were true, just because they may be written badly or ad hoc-ly, if they represent practice, they they are working. The only reason they probably see ad hoc to you is because these are organic works, changes and expanding as practices are refined. --M ASEM  (t) 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I simply don't observe the reality to be anything like this. Policies may or may not represent practice; much of the time they just talk nonsense (in order not to offend the holders of opposing views as to what practice is). Much practice is not documented in policy anyway, so it's absurd to say that "everything has to be based on policy". Victor Yus (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see things far different with practice following written policy to a tee. Now of course there are cases of practices that go against policy, but these are not practices that have supervision or oversight and so just because they happen doesn't mean they are standard practice or policy (eg: just because several articles about X have been created when policy Z says not to doesn't mean Z is invalid, as it depends if anyone has actually looked at the articles about X - the case with the MMA ones until recently.) Now, if you're seeing practice at odds with policy you should be bringing it up, but be expected, just like you've found here, that simple observations don't prove conflict within a policy. --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose terrible idea, susceptible to gaming the system (spamming page views), and group bias. No number of editors or readers can create truly reliable content where the information isn't sourced. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about getting unsourced information into Wikipedia, it's about deciding what particular sourced information should be included, or should be placed on a separate page. Victor Yus (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Notability isn't about "information" at all... its about topics. Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes (hence "or should be placed on a separate page"), but there's no denying that decisions about notability also affect significantly what information gets included. When someone's bio is deleted on grounds of non-notability, no effort is necessarily made to retrieve the verifiable information from that article and merge it into another article (and even if that were done, it's likely that a good proportion of it would be trimmed back, to avoid giving "undue" emphasis on that individual within the larger article). Victor Yus (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it is verifiable doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in WP. We're a tertiary source, not a complete knowledge base. --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this in any way inconsistent with what I was saying? Victor Yus (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you're complaining about the loss of information when an article is deleted and no attempt to merge verifiable information into a larger topic is made. Just because it is verifiable doesn't mean we have to include it so sometimes, such actions are completely valid. --M ASEM (t) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't complaining, just observing. Victor Yus (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely oppose, a topic is notable because it has been noted, extensively, by reliable sources unaffiliated with it. If not, it is not, regardless of how popular a meme it is. That is the only verifiable, objective standard of notability, and is the only one we should use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love it if we could all agree that a topic that has multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources was enough to meet our inclusion guidelines. But apparently that has really ceased to be true.  We have articles deleted because the sourcing is "local" or "too narrow" or whatever.  The WP:N "compromise" between inclusionist and deletionists has been getting broken badly (on both sides).  I see bogus articles (that I like) kept that don't come near WP:N and I've seen solidly sourced articles (most sport events and BLPs) that I don't honestly care about deleted.  It's a mess.  While I'm not fond of pageviews (I agree notability isn't temporary), we could use a metric that's hard to game.  I thought WP:N was that metric, but I no longer believe that. I can't support this metric due to it's flaws (subject to gaming by bot, not a good measure of long-term importance, probably just wrong philosophically) but let's not pretend that what we have is an objective standard. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting articles with just local and narrow sources follows from the fact that we are a summary of mankind's knowledge, not a complete collection of it. If a topic only has importance to a narrow field of study or to a narrow geographic reason, then discussing it indepth on WP is not appropriate. It can be included in coverage of a larger topic but should not be given its own article.  That remains an objective standard for inclusion in WP. --M ASEM  (t) 18:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There I have to disagree since as a blanket statement this is completely wrong. Actually we do strive to be an complete (encyclopedic) compilation of mankind's knowledge (though that is neverending process). We do have a large variety of article that are based on "narrow" sources only in a narrow field of study, that we definitely want to keep. Any somewhat advanced or more specialized object in academia falls under that category and we definitely want to keep them. We strive to have an article (or at least an entry in a list or summary article) on any river, lake, mountain range, town on earth. So naroow sources or narrow field isn't really an issue at all here. It might become more of an issue if we look at certain special type of articles like events. With regard to events we may consider very local material as not notable, even though theoretical sufficient local coverage exists. For instance we may not want articles on arbitrary highschool games or small township festivities.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And you just pointed out how we're not complete. One of the five pillars is that we aren't a collection of indiscriminate information. Notability is one measuring stick to assure that we are providing topics that have sourced coverage that have some importance to a reasonably broad range of interest. --M ASEM  (t) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * knowledge!=(arbitrary) information. The discussion above was about left side whereas the five pillars commentary is abour the right side. Again we (intentionally) cover plenty of stuff for which one could claim no "reasonably broad range of interest" exists, for instance such as the name of every minor river or township in Iowa or various dung beetle species. But we cover them nevertheless, as we consider them encyclopedic knowledge. I'm not arguing against notability restricting the information collected in WP (that's fine), rather I'm arguing against the notion that a "narrow" field and "narrow" sources as such automatically imply a lack of notability. That might be true for articles on events, but it is definitely false for articles in general as I tried to illustrate above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason we cover such places is that towns and geographic features have much more permanence than more contemporary topics; such things have been covered for centuries and millennium while your latest celeb or sports team likely will have a much shorter time frame. So they aren't "narrow" because they cover a broad period of time. --M ASEM  (t) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact above we were talking about narrow sources and narrow fields in general and not just time, the "broad time" notion is somewhat artificial construct here and not quite true either. Much of the recent academic material/results we cover has no broad time frame at all (yet) and is in a narrow field. As far as celebs are concerned, we more or less cover all of them anyhow (old or recent) and so do/did special subject encyclopedias and databases as well (consider dictionaries/encyclopedia's of biography, movie encyclopedias and databases), though for most of them at least you might make a non local argument. My point here however is that the application of "narrow sources" and "narrow fields" argument depends on the area, it applies for some (such as events) and much less so for others. I'm not criticizing that, I'm just pointing it out and imho it is justified to treat different areas differently. The reason I'm emphasizing this is, because sometimes editors attempt to apply them equally across all areas and try to delete specialized scientific results or geographic objects, we definitely do want to keep. So we should avoid giving them the wrong idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is (or should be) a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. If the article is otherwise inappropriate, we still shouldn't include it, but lack of sufficient sourcing should always be a bar to inclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder and we end up with a non-objective standard for inclusion. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Masem wrote "If a topic only has importance to a narrow field of study or to a narrow geographic reason, then discussing it indepth on WP is not appropriate". I utterly and totally disagree - does an article on his home town exist? His college of school? In my case, the answer to both is "yes". If an article exists that puts into context a subject is well known to three million English-language users on planet Earth, (for example English speakers in South Africa), but which is hardly known outside South Africa, then where should it be discussed? South Africa does not have its own version of Wikipedia. The article that I have been defending over the last few years on WIkipeida and which I first heard in the 1960's gets 10 to 15 hits a day, every day and has been doing so for more years than I have been defending it. Martinvl (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because their high school and college have articles doesn't give any weight to whether the person has an article; we look to what sources say about his influence. (Otherwise, I could argue nearly every person that has gone to high school or equivalent to be notable, which is of course bogus).  Without knowing the article, its otherwise hard to answer the other part of the questions. --M ASEM  (t) 05:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for all the oppose reasons above. Unfortunately, the WP community adopted a word Notability to characterize its topic inclusion criteria and redefined it to meet its purpose.  That redefinition has become a classic example of John Locke’s Abuse of Language and causes no end of problems for editors who attribute its real definition to inclusion of articles in WP.   As a Campus Ambassador in the WM US Education Program, I teach students what WP Notability means.  It’s simple, it’s functional, and I believe serves the goals of WP as a tertiary source very well.  Notability is a simple hurdle—significant coverage of a topic in reliable secondary sources—no more or no less.  Clear the hurdle and a topic is Notable for WP purposes and suitable for inclusion.  If the hurdle cannot be cleared, the consequence is deletion.


 * There is a real-world analogy that I experience on a regular basis. Most of our National Parks require an entrance fee (inclusion hurdle).  At Yellowstone, the fee is $25/7 days, or possessing one of several annual passes.  Yet I can enter and leave Yellowstone regularly (page views) without displaying a pass.  The gates are open 24/7 but unmanned from ~10PM to 6AM.  Enter before 6AM and you don’t show a pass.  Even leaving when the gates are manned, no pass is required 9 out of 10 times.   But occasionally they spot check vehicles leaving the park and if you don’t have a pass, you pay. (very similar to deletion).  If the article can’t clear the notability hurdle, regardless of how many times readers have viewed it or how long it has survived, then it is not notable and should suffer the consequences. Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no $25 hurdle here. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" is so subjective a criterion that can be (and is) made to mean whatever people want it to mean in any particular case. And they make it mean whatever is necessary in order to argue for the inclusion (deletion) of topics that, in their own idealized mental picture, Wikipedia ought (ought not) to include. Or if that doesn't work, they bring up other, equally vague and subjective, additional criteria to arrive at the result they want. I'm not saying we should introduce measurable criteria for inclusion, but we should be more open about the real motivation for these decisions. Victor Yus (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are very open on the purpose of notability: "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." But as the page notes, notability is but one standard, other policies further restrict this (such as NOT). The AFD process is what prevents abuses of this process to deal with personal dislikes of certain topics, since this is the only route for removing an article if notability is the issue. AFD is not perfect, but it goes a long way from prevent abuses of the system due to personal dislikes. --M ASEM  (t) 13:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Victor - I think our notability standard (inclusion criteria) is very functional which is borne out by the fact that we have close to ~4M articles in EN.WP. Indeed Significant coverage by reliable sources is subjective, but it is not whimsical. One of my first articles was deleted as non-notable. I took it personally, but it helped me understand what Notability meant in WP lingo.  We have a entrance fee.  It may not be as precise as $25 but it is certainly more precise than throwing a few pennies in a bucket. The addition of manipulatable page views as an inclusion criteria would be akin to telling the NPS ranger, I've been in the park 25 times without showing a pass, so you should let me in without one.  --Mike Cline (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, I think that the analogy is more one of "Officer, I was not at the scene of the crime, I was at the Yellowstone Park. Unfortunately I arriver at 04:00 am to take photographs of the rising summer sun and there was nobody to collect the money, so I don't have a receipt, but here are the time-stamped photos that I took".  Although I could have forged the date on the photos, the officer will have to investigate the photos to see if they were genuine or whether he should throw a charge of perverting the course of justice at me as well. Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Making the guideline clearer
(Was part of thread above; have separated it.) Not sure where this is going now, but Masem mentioned the sentence "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." This is a good example of a meaningless and even misleading sentence that ought not to be in the guideline, whatever our views on notability are. The basic standard in question is (simply put) "no sources -> no article", which I guess is uncontroversial, but the concept of notability does not apply that standard (even assuming you can talk about a concept applying something); it extends that standard, to say something more like "no significant coverage -> no article". Which is not made clear in that paragraph at all. This is the sort of thing that ought to be tidied up, just for the sake of communicating our message clearly - efforts to do this work should not be looked on with suspicion and reverted out of some baseless fear that wikilawyers on one side or another will somehow be empowered by it. We must rid ourselves of the superstitious belief that the only way to prevent a guideline from being abused is to keep it inherently unclear. Victor Yus (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Except, it doesn't. If you're talking the GNG, which is "no significant coverage -> no article", yes. If you're talking about the subject specific guidelines, they are "unable to show matching criteria that presumes significant coverage -> no article". However, as a guideline, there are other possible, unwritten means for a topic to be notable; they are unwritten because how inconsistently such additional paths may be.
 * Here's the problem: all of our guidelines and policies are a giant jigsaw puzzle. They fit together near perfectly with a few things that do slip between the cracks. Language in one is designed to reflect language elsewhere, which may lead to questionable statements like this, but in the larger picture, they make complete sense.  You're looking to disrupt that puzzle by removing the parts that interlock the guidelines and policies, which may favor a clearer understanding of one specific policy/guideline but losing the cohension we have throughout the rest.  Or at least based on the statements you've made, you want to prescribe practice - saying as simply as possible what this actually all means - rather than describe it. Elsewhere, this may make sense, but in the culture of WP, that just doesn't work. There is a learning process editors need to understand if they plan on significant contribution to this. It may take a few weeks of patience to learn but it really is not that hard.  It's the editors that want instant gratification, who want the simple prescriptions of how to follow policy, that are hard to satisfy. That's why there's seemingly excess language - we're trying to describe (not prescribe) the philosophy and ideas that years of policy development have stated so that editors can apply that fairly to novel situations, and why we try to normalize language between all policy and guidelines to make this clearer. --M ASEM  (t) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Victor, I believe in the practical nature of things. When I started editing WP (1/2007), I had one of my first articles deleted and several others survived AfDs.  Since then I’ve been able to create ~490 new articles without any deletion attempts and have been able to help save a lot of articles from deletion.  Why?, because very early on, our WP notability guideline—how it worked and want its intent was--became very clear to me.  If it wasn’t clear, I am sure I wouldn’t have been able to create or help save many articles without deletion being a reality.  In the span of time that I’ve been an editor, the number of WP articles in EN.WP has grown at least by ~1.5M.  There must be some clarity with our notability guideline that has enabled that kind of growth.  So I ask you, what is really unclear about the basic premise behind our notability guideline?  And, how would you resolve that lack of clarity?  We are not talking about applying the guideline to an isolated case and rewording it to fit that case.  We must think collectively about ~4M articles and the potential for that number to go to 5 or 6M in the next 10 years. (In fact the WM foundation has a goal for 50M articles across all language WP projects by 2015).  In the construct of ~4M articles, what is unclear about the notability guideline? Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Mike Cline. For all the debates, the Notability guideline has been pretty consistent over the past several years, and it's been applied pretty consistently. Articles with no independent reliable sources are deleted. Articles with lots of independent reliable sources are kept. There are a ton of articles in the middle too (with a couple independent reliable sources, or with a few independent reliable sources that don't say much) that always require some debate and interpretation. ... back to Victor's point, perhaps he's suggesting the guideline might have a lot of unnecessary fluff. I think all of our policies do, but one man's fluff is another man's necessity. We should be careful tampering with something that's worked pretty well. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary fluff, and unnecessary and horrible meaningless and misleading language. Why is it beyond you people's collective ability to simply say whatever it is you mean, in language that a reasonably intelligent but unknowledgeable person will understand? Well it isn't, apparently, since here on the talk page you (sometimes) manage it quite well. But you seem to have this paranoid fear about doing the same on the guideline page itself. Look at many of the statements on the page - are they going to make sense to anyone? Are people reading going to understand them correctly as they relate to Wikipedia's actual practices? Sorry, but as someone coming fresh to this page, I can tell you that they don't. And as for continually repeating that the guidelines and policies "work" - no they don't work. They generate huge amounts of time-wasting and good-faith-wasting argument, and (by their complexity and general incomprehensibility) probably deter many new potential editors from joining in with the project, and deter those who do join from trying to read about how things ought to be done. You would not (I hope, though I've seen that it can happen) write an encyclopedia article in the form of a series of dense statements with no clear logical succession - so what business have we doing writing a guideline (a GUIDELINE, note - something that's supposed to GUIDE people) in that way? Victor Yus (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find no problem with understanding the language. I acknowledge a lot of people dispute things but I believe they'd continue disputing things till they got their way and their way isn't in accord with the consensus of most editors so that's a very long time. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that the guideline is confusing. However, that is due to the way Wikipedia actually works... our guidelines describe consensus practice (as opposed to practice being dictated by guidelines).  The simple fact is that this guideline has always been a compromise between inclusionists and exclusionists... and because it is a compromise, it means that we don't actually have a clear-cut solid consensus. The extremes of both sides think the guideline should be worded to favor their viewpoint.
 * For example: take the idea that in order to demonstrate that a topic is notable, we have to show that there is significant discussion about that topic in reliable sources. This is how we operate for most topics. However, in some subject areas we have come up with alternative ways to demonstrate notability.... so, while we can state "no significant coverage --> no article" as a general rule-of-thumb, applicable to most articles... we can not state it as a solid, always to be followed Rule, applicable to all articles. There are simply too many exceptions.   Blueboar (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't find this to provide any excuse for writing the guideline in a confusing way. If there is a rule that has exceptions, then why not say clearly what the rule is and say clearly that there are exceptions. If there is no consensus on a point, then say that there is no consensus, and perhaps explain the main competing viewpoints (or link to essays that explain them, making it clear that this is what we are doing). When we use an English word in a non-standard way (as we do with "notability"), then say from the start that that's what we're doing - it's nothing to be embarrassed about. There's no excuse for writing in such a way that all this key information is conveyed at most in the subtext. Victor Yus (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would really easy for us to say "for a topic to have an article, it needs to have 2 reliable sources that discuss it at depth". That would cover 99% of what currently is allowed via the GNG without change. The problem is that 1% - there are exceptions and it is nearly impossible to write as exactly language for those exceptions to be clear about how they are handled, because the resolution always depends on consensus. That's why we have descriptive, not prescriptive polices and guidelines, and avoid trying to make hard lines for requirements like notability.  And that's why we can't just say "Do X and you'll be fine", we need people to understand all the background and rigmarole that has gone into these pages so that editors can understand how they apply in appropriate situations. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that people will not understand what we want them to understand, based on the way the page is written at the moment. I could improve it vastly, but from past experience, you or someone like you will revert anything I try to do, using quite spurious arguments (like that I'm de-emphasizing something about sources that isn't even alluded to in the version as written, or that I should "gain consensus first", which translates into "me and my mates own this page and we're not going to let little twerps like you change anything"). Victor Yus (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given what you've said you'd likely remove from past comments here, you would be significantly changing the meaning of this guideline relative to all other policy/guidelines it is built on or supported, and likely would make it worse. We've also not had people misunderstand the guideline for many years; complaints about notability heck yes, but not lack of understanding from the language alone.  Various phrases and the like are all in there for a reason. --M ASEM  (t) 13:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If one looks at the articles created by Mike Cline then one finds that they are mostly lists or stubby articles like List of cemeteries in Broadwater County, Montana and Butcher Hills. These do little or nothing to establish their notability and so their existence owes nothing to this guideline, clear or not.  It seems more likely that the real reasons that they have survived are that Mike is an admin and so his articles are autopatrolled and that the topics are dry and dull and so don't generate the animus which other topics attract (e.g. MMA)  What really drives AFD is personal taste.  The nitpicking about this guideline is mostly wikilawyering in support of such preferences and prejudices. Warden (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being an admin has absolutely nothing to do with notability, outside of the fact that being an admin likely means you have experience in being able to judge notability standards before creating an article. AFD does not protect articles created by admins in any way shape or form. --M ASEM (t) 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Warden - interesting observation. Do you dismiss WP:NOTESAL out of hand?  Over a year of very contentious discussion went into establishing the notability guideline for lists. BTW I was Autopatrolled long before I became an admin. FYI -Dry and Dull are in the eye of the beholder! --Mike Cline (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is part of the consensus, see WP:5P "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers ." Also see WP:MAPOUTCOMES. If you believe they are not notable do a google first and check rather than just looking at the citations, assumed notability means it is agreed good citations can normally be found. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Challenge for Victor. You said above: I could improve it vastly, but from past experience, you or someone like you will revert anything I try to do, using quite spurious arguments.... You don't need to actually change the guideline page, to let the community see your ideas. Spell them out on a subpage or userpage essay and ask the community to comment. Today, there is widespread community support for the notability standard we've set. Changing that standard will be difficult because essentially ~138,000 active editors understand and work with it everyday. Explaining your ideas cogently, concisely and without telling others they are doing it all wrong will go along way toward getting people to understand and respect your ideas. Boldly changing the wording of WP:Notability out of hand, without a lot of discussion and consensus just won't work with a long-standing guideline like this. I would be interested in actually seeing how you [I] could improve it vastly --Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

how to explain to people that they got deleted?
Hi, How can you explain to someone that the article was deleted?

http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:H4ck3rm1k3/Why_your_article_was_deleted?

I have started a project to rescue and curate non notable articles. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com

mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already Deletionpedia. Maybe you could work with them instead of starting over. Gigs (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not now / Too soon
A hatnote at the top of the article links to Not now, which is about editor requests for adminship. Shouldn't it instead link to the similarly titled Too soon, which is related to article quality standards? B7T (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's there because of ambiguous redirects. WP:NN comes here, which is why there's a link to a seemingly unrelated page. Gigs (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Category Deletion
Please report User:Niemti, relatively, a new user, to stop deleting this category from what was added into the  Category:Fictional immortals as demonic characters are notably immortal. The user should be notified the angels and other subcategories are to be kept as well please, notify him of WP:RSN and the meaning of some subcategories as immortal. Thanks. --GoShow (...............) 03:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That category seems to have been slated for deletion and will be turned into a list article. Have you tried talking to Niemti about their edits?  They may have removed the cat since the cat is dead anyway. Gigs (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I reported him they were listed into the Immortals in fiction list. Jeepers Creepers (2001 film) was notably a Category:Road Movie and the user seem to have alot of edit wars with many experienced users.--GoShow  (...............) 15:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

30 days before archiving
Any opposition to making the bot archive after 30 days? 10 days just seems a bit too short. --KarlB (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of activity on this page and 30 days would cause it to get cluttered. 10 days is fine with me. I think it was 14 days at one point which was also fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Presumption"
I think the "presumption" concept of SNGs is potentially problematic in general. Comments like are concerning to me. It's clearly impossible for the burden to be on anyone to prove that a topic is not notable. It's not possible to prove an existential negative; it's not possible to prove that secondary source coverage doesn't exist without being omniscient. If SNGs are unfalsifiable, then it's not a presumption at all, it's a complete override of the GNG. I don't intend to drag the debate from NSPORTS over to here; I think there is a bigger picture problem that probably should be discussed here. I note as well that the word "presume" was not used in relation to SNGs until January 2011, a relatively recent change. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 17:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to remember that notability (through the GNG or the SNG) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a topic to have an article. At the end of the day, notability should be to support all the other major policies and assure we don't have a indiscriminate topic. Presumption is still correct, as per WP:BURDEN the burden is on those wanting to retain the information, in this case, those that need to prove the topic is notable; if they can't satisfactorily prove it, then presumed notability has failed. We do give a high benefit of doubt because the opposite, proving a topic non-notable, is impossible (you can't prove the negative as you note).  The diff comment you note is completely wrong since it has never been on the AFD'ers side to prove non-notability. (That's why BEFORE is always pushed hard since it at least shows some legwork towards that). --M ASEM  (t) 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Masem: despite what that diff said, the SNGs don't prove anything, but rather are intended to be a practical guide as to what is likely to satisfy GNG. And I don't think that the specific example of confusion results so much from the word "presumed" as it does from the perpetually unreconciled tension between GNG and the SNGs. And actually, I suspect that the editor in that diff didn't really mean what we are taking it to mean here, but instead was trying to say that if someone favoring deletion can somehow show that a subject fails GNG, then "keep" arguments based on an SNG become less persuasive. But there is no doubt that disagreements about how far the "presumption" goes will continue as long as we have deletion discussions, although we won't fix that by changing the word "presumed". The discussion at NSPORTS about changing "considered" to "presumed" was one of those epic discussions that seem to come with every policy and guideline on this website, and we will probably only have another epic if we try to reopen the question again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't help that the word "presumption" links to the article for the legal term Rebuttable presumption, "taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". That sure sounds like we are putting the burden of proof on someone to prove that something is non-notable, which as we all agree, is impossible, and is not reflective of how we intend AfD to work. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very minimum, we need to remove the link to "rebuttable presumption", since that's clearly not correct. I think a better word might be "assumed".  It more correctly expresses what we mean, without the problematic legal connotation.  Such a change would impact a wide variety of SNGs, so I expect that would require wider discussion.  Can we at least agree to remove the link to the legal term? Gigs (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a problem with that link. I don't think the link means that. It's just saying that when someone passes the SNG, that generally means a keep, but a delete can result if someone refutes it via GNG. Actually, the rebuttable presumption page does call it an "assumption". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that someone must prove otherwise, which is impossible in this case. It's prima facie incorrect, to continue the legal jargon. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Who" has to "prove" the assumption false is not specified by "rebuttable presumption". In the legal situation, either this means that the defense can clearly provide evidence that the person was innocent, or the prosecution showing that the defendant is guilty. For WP, those starting the AFD (for equivalency, the "prosecution") cannot easily demonstrate a topic is non-notable, so it falls on the defense to prove that it is otherwise.  So it still stands without a problem. --M ASEM  (t) 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've completely mixed up the situation. It's up to whomever wants to rebut the presumption to prove that the presumption is false.  The presumption here is in favor of notability.  To rebut it requires proof of non-notability, which is impossible.   The question of "who" wants to rebut the presumption is irrelevant.   We don't operate AfD this way.  The wording is incorrect, and this isn't a matter of opinion, it's pure logic.  Gigs (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Proof of non-notability" is a red herring, it is a given that there is no such thing.  What is needed is evidence and inductive reasoning.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best way of thinking of it. We can't prove the negative so the only way to prove notability is in the positive direction and that's providing evidence of sourcing, which is and always had been on the burden of the those wishing to retain the article. The only consensus we make on the "rebuttal" side is that BEFORE should be followed as a preliminary check for lack of sourcing, but it is far from required. --M ASEM  (t) 22:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Prooving the negative" is a bit much, but if a subject satisfies a SNG, there should be some demonstration or evidence that despite meeting the SNG this particular subject does not meet GNG. After all, the SNGs exist because we know from long experience that subjects who meet the SNG do have significant coverage. And when dealing with century old subjects, merely doing a Google search is hardly an adequate demonstration to override an SNG presumption based on consensus and experience, when obviously the majority of sources will be offline and out of print. Rlendog (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You've still got the burden of proof reversed.  The burden is on those who want to demonstrate that a subject is notable.  To do otherwise is completely unworkable, and basically creates entire classes of inherent notability.  If I spent 10 hours going over microfiche newspaper archives and came up with nothing, what would that prove?  It wouldn't prove anything, or even provide evidence of anything, because it's a tiny fraction of "all work that's ever been published".  What you are requiring is no less than omniscience, or at a minimum, a comprehensive archive of every work ever published, which does not exist, and never will. Gigs (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is that there is no such thing as proof of non-notability, therefore we should not link to legal term "rebuttable presumption" which requires that the "rebutter" provide proof to the contrary of the presumption. What we mean by presumption is not what the legal term means. Gigs (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no such thing as proof of non-notability, why are we still talking about it? I agree that the Wikilink to "rebuttable presumption" is a confounding use of a Wikilink.  If this is important, then it should be a proper footnote, because as you note, this is not a legal term.  The understanding of "rebuttable presumption" is shown in WP:GNG, where it says, "is usually worthy of notice".  All notable topics must be "worthy of notice"  So passing a SNG or the GNG is not proof that the topic is "worthy of notice", there is still room to argue (the rebutting) that even though the evidence meets GNG or the SNG, the topic is not "worthy of notice".  The corollary is also true, that even though the topic fails all of the SNGs and the GNG, it can still be argued that the topic is nonetheless "worthy of notice".  Articles for deletion/33550336 IMO is an example of a topic that passes WP:GNG but the community refused to accept that it was "worthy of notice" as a standalone article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're still talking about it because there seemed to be opposition to removing the link to the legal term article, which is a little baffling to me since everyone seems to be in agreement that we don't really mean the legal concept. A footnote would be a good alternate place to link it to.   We have "overloaded" the term a little, since it seems to have slightly different connotations when applied to SNGs vs the GNG.  Passing an SNG is a presumption that a topic could pass the GNG, passing the GNG is a presumption of being noteworthy.  It would be good if the footnote could capture that subtlety, but if that turns out to be controversial, I think any attempt at capturing what we really mean would be better than the current link. Gigs (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the link to the legal term and added a footnote that should hopefully be non-controversial. It's not as detailed as I'd like but I tried to keep it concise and non-controversial. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to remove that, nor to add anything. "a rebuttable presumption is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise." That fits fine for the situation.  D r e a m Focus  13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at other ways outside of WP/wikis that "rebuttable presumption" is made, and in nearly every instance, in the legal sense, it puts the onus on the prosecution to prove the defendent guilty, as written; in WP's language, as Gigs has fairly pointed out, that puts the onus on those wishing to delete an article due to lack of notability to prove that no notability exists for a topic. That is impossible to prove - you can't prove a negative. In practice, AFDs are closed in favor of retention when those wishing to retain have either demonstrated how the current topic meets notability or have brought sources forward to prove that it is notable.  I do agree now with Gigs that there's a factor that people are taking "rebuttable presumption" strictly as the legal term states and expecting the AFD nominator to impossibly prove a negative. Ergo, the link removal is fine. This leaves the word "presumption" and thus the footnote added simply explains it true: we presume that articles are notable if they satisfy a guideline, but that can be challenged through AFD if they are borderline cases. (There's a hint of a larger issue, I think, in that we need to separate N and GNG to make is sure we're clear why this can be the case, but that's a much deeper thought and it's only 6:30am here...) --M ASEM  (t) 13:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the footnote would be uncontroversial, but simply removing the link would be a vast improvement, without a footnote at all, if that footnote was somehow controversial (I don't see how it was). Gigs (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Masem, You must prove its not notable, stating your case. You can't just nominate something for deletion without stating why you believe it should be deleted.  Its not a problem.  And if something meets the GNG or any of the SNG then it is presumed notable unless you have a very good reason why, and it can't be because you don't like it or think it makes the encyclopedia look bad.   D r e a m Focus  14:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The onus on notability is on those wanting to retain the article; when you create an article, you are taking it on yourself as the editor that you believe it is notable (the presumption). Any editor may challenge that presumption, meaning that you or other editors that want to retain it must prove it to be the case. Now, as an AFD nominator, you strengthen the case against notability by showing that you cannot find sources, but it is impossible for any one person to look through every single publication to find if there is truly a lack of sources, so you make the best as a sampling based on known, appropriate search methods. (Eg, by following BEFORE).  But the absolutely evidence can only come from the addition of sources. --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, inductive logic (based on a necessarily extremely limited search for sources out of the domain of all published works) or persuasive rhetoric (based on our policies) in favor of non-notability is a far cry from true "evidence" or "proof". Gigs (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any good reason to change any of it. Can anyone point to a discussion where someone actually cited the link to rebuttable presumption in a way that reflected a misunderstanding of policy? I mean, specifically, an instance in which the actual legal term was used explicitly, not just something where editors here are inferring that someone was thinking about it. Absent that, it seems to me that we are focusing on wording that isn't a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Dream Focus' comment right above here. it's using the "innocent until proven guilty" logic that rebuttable presumption implies. --M ASEM (t) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was that a reply to my question? I can see an argument here about "innocent until proven guilty", but not a link to where that argument was actually made elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm pointing out that at least one editor in general is considering it that way, though not as an immediately AFD counterargument. But I would point out the volume of editors that want BEFORE made as an enforceable policy as an example of where some believe that the nominator should be doing the legwork and not those wanting to retain the article. --M ASEM  (t) 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If there aren't any further objections, I'd like to reinstate the change. I'm not willing to let the status quo win by default on this one. Gigs (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. You can't just enter an AFD and say you think something should be deleted, simply because you don't like it, and expect to be taken seriously. You have to have a reason why it meeting the GNG or the SNG isn't enough to prove its notable.  Otherwise simply proving it meets those guidelines does mean its notable.    D r e a m Focus  01:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First remember that meeting the GNG or SNG is not the only requirement for allowing a standalone article; if it fails other policies or consensus doesn't believe the article is appropriate, it can still be deleted. But on the issue of notability, the only evidence to affirm it is the presence of sources.  The nominator can challenge that sources doesn't exist or what exist are not sufficient, but it expected that do some legwork to start to avoid trivially stupid, IDONTLIKEIT nominations.  But as long as the challenge is valid, it is up to those wanting to retain the article to prove otherwise. This does not meet the definition of "rebuttable presumption" aka "innocent until proven guilty"; ours is more "innocent until proven innocent" if we had to use similar terms.  --M ASEM  (t) 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will agree with removing the link, based primarily on the fact that "rebuttable presumption" is tied to the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", which is gamed to mean that those wishing to delete should have to prove it non-notable. It still is a presumption, which means that it can be challenged with the burden on those seeking retention to prove it notable to the !voters. Personally, I believe it is a rebuttable presumption, but its a long-thought out process to get to that point, and those impatient are going to read it wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 16:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The flaw in this thead is the idea that anyone must "Prove" notability (or lack of notability). That isn't how it works.  Notability is determined by consensus.  In forming that consensus we look at sources, various policies and guidelines, and a host of other factors.  Essentially, a subject/topic is notable (or not notable) as long as there is a consensus of Wikipedians that agree that the subject/topic is indeed notable (or not notable).  This is what the AfD process is all about.
 * Now, a well written article is going to mention the things that make the subject/topic notable, and (according to WP:Verifiability) we must cite sources to support such statements. However, this is distinct from the more basic question of "is the topic notable or not?"... citing sources is how we, as editors, demonstrate that the subject/topic is notable, not how we determine whether it is notable.  Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to take the legal metaphor too far, but in a court of law, lawyers are attempting to do the same thing: provide enough evidence and other factors to convince the judge/jury that the defendant is guilty. Some may be open-shut cases with clear-cut evidence, others may be based on more circumstantial evidence. At AFD, the same can develop. Oh, here's a huge 500 page book dedicated to the topic, or here's a handful of articles that seem to possess notability for the topic. You're convincing the consensus to retain the article, so we're still dealing with non-absolute proof. --M ASEM  (t) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fine point blueboar, and another good argument that the link should be removed. It's really not an issue of "proof" on either end of the debate, and mixing in legal terms that imply that it is is confusing. Gigs (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very sincerely, I'm still not getting what the problem is. It sounds to me like we are worried that some editors think that we have to provide the equivalent of mathematical proof of notability/non-notability, or else every article is guilty until proven innocent (for keep or delete). (Maybe it's just me, but not for lack of effort.) It just seems to me that WP:COMPETENCE comes into play, and no editor who employs common sense would actually succumb to such a rigid interpretation of "presumption". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the length of this discussion, I think it's clear that what is meant by "presumption" here is a very subtle matter, not easily quantified by even us, the experienced editors, I dare say the "experts" on notability since we participate on this page. I think it is too much to expect an editor new to dealing with notability to click that word, read the legal definition, and then figure out we mean something else entirely. Gigs (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The link should be removed; wikipedia is not a court of law, and we do not need to confuse the waters by linking to a legal term here which has a specific legal meaning, which does not apply to our notability standards. --KarlB (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, my point is that I have no difficulty understanding the plain, common sense, meaning of "presumption", but I have a lot of difficulty making sense of the lengthy discussion by editors who hang out here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trypto, do you believe that the plain, common sense meaning of presumption corresponds to the legal definition currently linked to? Gigs (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The legal definition linked to works well. There is no such thing as a common sense meaning here.  Do you mean a common dictionary meaning?  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presumption We don't have the audacity to make such assumptions I would hope.   D r e a m Focus  14:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gigs, that question to me is a fair one. And seeing what Dream Focus says, I realize that there is, indeed, some inconsistency in what I said in that last comment of mine. But it doesn't change my lack of understanding of what the problem is here. Let's say, then, that your (Gigs') comment is telling me that "presumption" (generally) and "rebuttable presumption" have differing meanings. So, to answer your question directly, OK yes, I see some differences. But, then, I will revise what I said. I have no trouble understanding what "rebuttable presumption", linked that way, means in the context of how it appears on the page here. Sure, this isn't a courtroom, but I trust, per WP:COMPETENCE, that editors reading the policy page can figure that out. So I'm still not seeing a convincing reason that there's a problem that needs to be fixed. I asked, earlier, for someone to show me a discussion, not on this talk page but somewhere else such as an AfD, where someone got into a misunderstanding as a result of the link to rebuttable presumption – where they actually quoted it themselves, and not where editors here are guessing that they were misled by the link. The response has been silence, so I kind of doubt that we really have a problem that needs to be fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to notability (and specifically the fact it means deletion of someone's contribution), COMPETENCE tends to fly out the door. People will take the language of policy and guidelines with legal finesse, even though its clear we don't want them to.
 * I think the change being asked is extremely benign. We're not removing the word "presumption" just the link to the legal term of 'rebuttable presumption" which doesn't really apply for demonstrating notable.  But we still make notability a presumption, and if we have to footnote exactly what that means (in that we AGF that a user said a topic is notable when they supply GNG sourcing or meet an SNG, but that can be challenged and the notability considered null if consensus agrees, a "notable until proven notable" situation) then let's add it. --M ASEM  (t) 00:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I, like you, didn't see a problem with the link either when I first encountered it.  It was encountering comments like Rlendog's and Dream Focus' that made me reexamine the issue, and really read what the legal article said. Gigs (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, can you point to an instance where such an abandonment of COMPETENCE took place as a result of the link? Gigs, I don't think that what Rlendog said was particularly out of bounds, nor did they seem to be basing that comment specifically on the link, but rather on their overall reading of what would remain here even if we removed the link, and Dream Focus is expressing what I think is a reasonable view in this discussion here. Has Dream Focus made an argument based on the link in an AfD, with which you would disagree? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Putting that another way, I accept that Masem is right that COMPETENCE sometimes doesn't happen in deletion discussions, and that we might as well write policies so that even those who lack COMPETENCE can understand them. But I think that all of the problems we have been discussing here arise from the perennially uneasy relationship between GNG and the SNGs, and not specifically from the link to rebuttable presumption. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fictional immortals
Please stop Niemti from deleting the categories of werewolves and angels from this main category as they are main default sources with vampires and demons and more.74.34.80.178 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place to raise this concern. I see that someone is already discussing it at User talk:Niemti. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

checking the temperature for a name change (in principle)
I know changing the name of this guideline is a perennial proposal. But in light of the frequent debates over the content of this guideline, I wanted to show how these frequent debates might lose steam if the guideline were called something else. This guideline is about best practices around sourcing a stand-alone article. We refer to these sourcing requirements under the heading of "notability", but this name leads to several other perennial debates and problems:
 * Drama: Many editors (especially newbies) react poorly to hearing their work isn't "notable". I've never seen the same reaction to hearing our requirement for sources. (The reaction is usually "ok, what sources can I use?")
 * Bad PR: Having a notability guideline has led to media accusations that we're elitist. Having sourcing guidelines has led to *GOOD* PR, that we try to be responsible.
 * Wikilawyering: Often, editors who know better still try to say that notability isn't about sources. "It's notable because it has youtube hits!"
 * Learning Curve: There's a lot of wasted time and energy from explaining "... Notability means WP:Notability, not Notability."
 * Least clear policy name. "No original research" or "... is not a dictionary" strongly indicate what Wikipedia expects from editors just from their title. "Notability" doesn't.

I'm not sure what a new name would be. Maybe as matter of fact as possible ("third party sources"), or maybe a more descriptive version of what we have now ("Verifying notability of article topics"). But I'd like to see how others see the connection between this guideline's name and this guideline's drama level. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Drama and PR will happen regardless of what we call it presuming there is no change otherwise to the process; arguably Wikilawyering will too as long as whatever it is remained to de-emphasizes the importance of popularity and page hits. The last two are pertinent but difficult to work around without introducing new problems (not saying we can't just that I think we need to focus on those two the most). --M ASEM (t) 17:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that a name change will be an uphill battle that will fail. But I think that concern over the learning curve and its various adverse effects is well-placed. Instead of changing the name, maybe (once all the other stuff about the nutshell yada yada yada is resolved) something in the nutshell or the lead section could say, very clearly, that WP:Notability is not the same thing as Notability. I'd even favor thinking up a catchy WP: shortcut that would lead right to it, so it would become easy to point out in discussions elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the wider community would ever accept a more practical title for this guideline or not is a difficult question. However, if we going to be brutally honest with ourselves then this guideline would be called Article Inclusion Criteria and its partner in confusion WP:NOT would be called Article Exclusion Criteria.  Nothing substantial would have to change with the standards, we'd just have to get rid of what John Locke calls the Abuse of language--we shouldn't have to refine notability into WP:Notability for ever new editor that comes along. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Two problems: one, we've tried the concept of article inclusion before but that leads to people wanting to claim inherit notability (read: "We should be including every X that meets Y!"). Second, WP:NOT is both content policy and a standard for standalone articles, so we can't just rename it to that.
 * One aspect to throw out here is if the GNG should be separated from WP:N or whatever name it comes up to be. This helps to make it clear that notability ( or whatever we call it ) is best demonstrated by the GNG but can be demonstrated by other factors but we're still aiming to write non-stubby encyclopedic articles here. --M ASEM  (t) 19:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The GNG is very successful as the heart of WP:N. The GNG could very well be renamed, though I don't think it is necessary or desirable.  People does misunderstand the full "General notability guideline" due to real world usage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, here, the GNG is one way to meet WP:N. The subject-specific ones are another. The GNG works most of the time and should be the default if the SNGs don't fit. However, we should be clear (if we're throwing out ideas) that WP:N != GNG. It's a point of confusion I've seen, and lets us discuss the more philosphocial aspects of what we expect notability (or article inclusion, or whatever) gives. --M ASEM  (t) 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, I disagree with your nuance. The GNG is the main way to meet WP:N.  There is a very strong trend, especially at DRV, that if a SNG question is in dispute, refer to the GNG.  I do think you are wrong about the relationship of WP:N and the GNG.  WP:N is the GNG, with the explanations and caveats in its footnotes and in the subsequent sections.  None of the subsquent sections detail additional criteria.  The SNGs are introduced in the lede, immediately following reference to the GNG, in parallel, though kind of subserviently, like supplementary information.  It's all fully logical.
 * Philosophical aspects? WP:N, and its subguidelines, present the criteria by which a new editor may quickly assess whether it is worth attempting to write an article on a topic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been considering notability for so long (mostly as how fascinating it is) that there is definitely the way it is put into practice that seems obvious for 99% of cases of AFD (going in either direction), but the nuances of WP:N, WP:GNG, the SNGs, and other factors that come into play for the one 1% make complete sense - but very difficult to grasp initially - of why the GNG is a component, but not the whole, of WP:N. WP:N is a concept, GNG is a "quick and dirty" metric that is easy to demonstrate, but beyond that as long as the article can trends towards meeting WP:V, NOR, NPOV and avoid NOT, and yet fail the GNG, there might be a chance we keep it that the GNG or the other SNGs simply don't account for.  Maybe that's the IAR part of WP:N, maybe there's something there that will make the concept easier to put to newer users. Hence thrwing it out there as an option.--M ASEM  (t) 06:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside: I don't think it's useful to speculate about the chances that the name change will fail. I'm more interested if those who frequent the guideline see any flaws with the current name. I'm setting the bar very, very low. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very reasonable. But do please consider the possibility of a change along the lines that I suggested. My temperature is kind of luke-warm on the name change per se. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of a name change. I believe notability on Wikipedia has two prongs, and the current name only reflects one of them.  As well, notability being a word with a meaning somewhat different than what we mean has caused problems both within WP and outside. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the name of this policy. It doesn't have to be interpreted literally. It is just the name for a policy. WP:TWOPRONGS also mentions "subject specific notability guidelines", in which are found 12 separate areas. Within those areas are found yet more subject areas. And so on and so forth. Within WP:PEOPLE are we considering the notability of a WP:POLITICIAN or a WP:PORNSTAR or an WP:AUTHOR? The word "notable" is simply a catchall term. It is addressing a question as to whether we should have an article devoted to a certain subject. If a better term than notability can be suggested we can consider it. But as it stands I for one see nothing wrong with the term that we are presently using for the overall policy heading. The criteria for notability are obviously not the same across the board. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but the problem comes in when people get their feelings hurt because we call them "not notable", or we get outside ridicule from press coverage of an AfD and our use of the word "notable" to mean something different from what it means to the rest of the world. Internally we have confusion as well.  Only recently we changed the BLP policy to clarify when we meant "Wikipedia notability" vs "Real-world notability".  If we can't even keep the term straight in our own policies then it's a lot to expect the rest of the world to do so as well.  I agree it would be a large tasks to change the name, it would have to be changed in many places, with large "human inertia" as well, a task not undertaken lightly. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop - Its obvious that your position is completely uninformed by John Lockes Abuse of Language. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Notability is a very good description. People are going to argue for their favourite idea whatever the criterion is called and they are going to have their feelings hurt that it isn't included however you phrase it. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that notability (as a term of art here) and notability (as commonly used in English) are different notions and this use of jargon is detrimental to the project. I suspect we will struggle to find a name folks can agree on so we may end up back where we started, but it's worth a shot.  Thanks to Shooterwalker for initiating this discussion. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Mike Cline.  Move this page to Article Inclusion Criteria (or should it be Article inclusion criteria?).  Not to be confused with Article inclusion which was an overambitious attempt to write something new and different.  The very easy misunderstanding that WP:Notability is about notability would go away. WP:Notability should remain a hard redirect.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Be aware, we once tried to pass WP:Article inclusion before. Furthermore, be weary that WP:N does not fully encompass what we would consider inclusion guidelines (this is where NOT, BLP, and a few other bits and pieces would come in). --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. WP:Article inclusion was an overambitious attempt to start again.  I was there.  A rename from "Notability" was a good idea, but the proposal was not for a rename.  I think I thought it was a derailed good idea, and that I refrained to speaking to it at all.  I am aware that these discussions are wearying, and yes, I am wary of broadening this discussion from a rename.  WP:N is the main collection of inclusion criteria (assuming it includes the SNGs).  NOT & BLP are exclusion, not inclusion criteria (as well as positive advice on how to write good content).  NOT and BLP are also policy, to which WP:N is subservient, and NOT and BLP also speak directly to content, redirects, and other namespaces while WP:N speaks only to mainspace standalone articles.  Do you have any specific examples of what should be considered an inclusion guideline (not exclusion) that is not appropriate to include at WP:N, or on a page called "WP:Article inclusion criteria"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "inclusion" aspect gets in the way when one of our founding principles is "WP is not paper" and can theorhetically have an article on any topic. Instead, perhaps it is "article appropriateness", some parts of whether a topic can merit an article, and some parts if the only possible content for that article is unwarrented. --M ASEM  (t) 05:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: A common objection I see to a name change is "people who hate the guideline will hate it no matter what it's called". I think that's true for some people, but not for everyone. Some of the comments here are evidence of that: You're seeing plenty of people here who think a name change would add clarity, and that notability is really about sources. Those comments are evidence that a name change WOULD help (or at least COULD help). (Whether we'd be able to agree on a name is still a tougher question, but again, I'd rather just take the temperature at the present moment, rather than start that discussion.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support change to WP:Standalone It is an ongoing issue at AfD with people thinking that WP:N is a content policy.  This confusion seems to be a mix of old-timers who don't know that the guideline changed five years ago, and new-comers who get bad guidance from these old-timers.  WP:V is the threshold for inclusion, not WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. WP:V is an absolute minimum, but is not sufficient. WP:NOR must be read concurrently. Together, see WP:A, they basically say what WP:N says, except WP:N is the special case of an entire topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that this changed after 2006. In 2006, WP:N was a "minimum threshold of notability", where "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic."  Now, WP:N is about the topic, not about the article.  WP:N frequently says that it is not about content.  For example, the nutshell states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles".  The lede states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list...For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see [list follows]"  WP:N repeats the idea three more times.  WP:NRVE states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."  WP:V, on the other hand, states, "Verifiability...is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the nitpicking.
 * A change to WP:Standalone is a very good idea. The purpose of WP:N is to help writers, and participants at AfD, decide whether the topic/subject of the article should be a standalone article.  If not, the article should be merged or deleted.  Many notable (real-world usage) subjects get merged or deleted, and therefore the current title is misleading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect Standalone (to Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists) can be deleted, and its six incoming links retargeted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't object to a name change, and several decent suggestions have been put forward here. A merge of names might be possible, like .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's another Wikipedia attempt to coin new usage (like it's coined disambiguation). A better word is noteworthiness.

Notability - a question
In connection with an on-going dispute I am engaged with, can someone involved with "notability" as a policy please tell me if they have any evidence to show that a man by the name of Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli is notable? With thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 20:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A better place to ask your question would be WP:N/N. This talk page is just about what the policy should say, not how it applies to particular articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording change
I propose changing the wording from "Significant coverage means that the sources the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" to "Significant coverage means that some of the sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". This should be done for clarification purposes. I made the change but I was reverted without a reason so I am unaware what the issue is. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The revert was not done without a reason, the edit summary gave the definition of "significant coverage". The definition was enough to explain, and there was no more room in the edit comment to add any further analysis.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a problem with the change (to add "some"). We obviously allow a mix of sourcing, as long as some part of that sourcing, as a whole, provides significant coverage.  It could hypothetically be that every source is a good significant secondary source, it could be that 5 out of 100 refs are actually the "significant coverage" with the other 95 provide fact references. We don't require every source to be a contributor towards "significant coverage". --M ASEM  (t) 14:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this change is to highlight that the specific references that do give significant coverage are required to exist. i.e This helps highlight that sticking together a lot of passing mentions doesn't make something notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" was noted in the edit summary of the revert. Allowing that "some" sources don't need to have significant coverage is saying that in considering WP:GNG we consider sources that have trivial coverage, which is contradictory.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-reading it. There's no contradiction since the GNG is the requirement of significant coverage in secondary sources. That says nothing that ties weaker coverage (say, trivia) to "significant coverage". The clarity is that not all sources used have to contribute to significant coverage. --M ASEM  (t) 15:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "all sources used" to do what? Are we talking about WP:GNG?  We have two adjacent sentences, one specifies that "significant coverage" is "more than a trivial mention".  That creates two sets of sources: (1) significant coverage and (2) those that are trivial.  What is the problem we are trying to solve?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those aren't two different sets, they're the same set: what the editors consider to be "significant coverage" and that the set shouldn't just include "trivial mention". Outside of this set, sources can be primary and trivial mentions, but not the block of works that are contributing towards significant coverage. I recommend ignoring the edit summary and look at just the addition of "some" as a reasonable statement that not every soruce in an article needs to be towards significant coverage. --M ASEM  (t) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So the previous post is really arguing that trivial mentions are a part of "significant coverage". The context here is WP:GNG, this is not a definition of article sources.  Please provide an example of a trivial mention that can source the encyclopedia.  And again, what is the problem being solved?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the point of the definition of "significant coverage" is that "significant coverage" is material that can be used to write at least one sentence in Wikipedia. If it has no depth; if it is trivial; if it is of the nature, "The deceased was employed for four years at Zimbalismus Corporation"; then it cannot be used to write an encyclopedic sentence.  We could say, "Zimbalismus Corporation had employees." or "Zimbalismus Corporation existed for at least four years." or "Zimbalismus Corporation is known to have employed at least one person for four years". or "Zimbalismus Corporation employees die."  None of these sentences suffice as being encyclopedic content, thus supporting the idea that the source is trivial.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of significant coverage is that more than a passing mention is given in some sources that can be located. I.e there exist multiple sources, each of which, dedicates whole paragraphs/chapters/books to the topic. Trivial coverage is merely a passing mention or a single sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a footnote in WP:GNG that provides an example of a trivial source, that being the reference to the "Three Blind Mice". WP:ORG offers additional examples.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to reinforce it, I was just putting it in the definition of significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose the change suggested. The GNG reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ...".  It cannot be reasonably read that this means that the topic must have significant coverage in every reliable source.  Therefore, some is implied without ambiguity.  The footnote does not need to emphasize this obvious some.  The footnote currently defines "significant coverage" with respect to the "reliable sources" to which it refers, and the definition in isolation should not use the word "some".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of learned societies with weak coverage
You may find this discussion of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lists redux
List of casinos in Washington (state) is just a list of casinos in the state of Washington, in other words, it's a directory, with links to the casinos in the list. There are more or less 35 casinos in the list, with only 4 of them having articles. Maybe this is better than List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington (a city of 122,000 people), but why do we say we are not a directory when it looks as though we are a directory? Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Casinos in Washington state" or "Gambling in Washington state" is a legitimate, encyclopedic subject. Therefore a list of items on that subject is likely to be notable.  I can't imagine spending time on that subject myself, but I can easily imagine it meeting Featured List criteria, if some editor were really interested in developing it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As a resident in WA, here's the problem: there's casinos that I know exist that aren't on this list but they are smaller ones, and that's just along my commute road. There certainly are larger, notable casinos in this state, but I think such a list is going to have to have some type of discretion or requirement to be included. --M ASEM (t) 20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To give a different example from a field that I am familiar with... Take a look at List of Masonic Grand Lodges... which attempts to list every entity that claims to govern a segment of Freemasonry - regardless of size, age, or debates about legitimacy (a huge and controversial issue for Freemasons... there is a lot of debate over who is legitimate and who is not). It is not a Navigational list: The majority of these entities would never qualify for a stand-alone article on their own.  They are too small, too obscure, and no independent sources discuss them in the specific.  So, would we call this list a directory, or a legitimate spin off of our Grand Lodge article?  Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's no attempt to be discriminate about what is included, it's probably a directory which by necessary are purposely indiscriminate. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)