Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60

Promote to policy?
Persuant to the current WP:CENT discussion at the pump re WP:NSPORT, Magdalena Zamolska was offered an example, and the AfD on that was recently closed.

From looking at Articles for deletion/Magdalena Zamolska, we see that:
 * The subject clearly did not meet WP:GNG. This is incontrovertible I think -- the article refs were to sports-statistics spreadsheets, with not even a small article about the subject or even a passing mention in a newspaper
 * But FWIW the subject did meet WP:NCYCLING, part of WP:NSPORT. I believe this was established.
 * And the "vote" was 10-6 to keep, which usually puts a closer in the mind of leaning toward "no consensus to delete", all other things being equal.

(Off topic background: WP:NSPORT clearly says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." So it is just a tool for evaluating GNG status, and it even strongly implies "No GNG, no article". Except the next sentence is "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". So that sentence, and particularly the "or" in that sentence, implies that WP:SPORTS stands as an alternative to GNG. Confusing! But that's a side issue.)

Anyway the person who closed the discussion (who I am not faulting, just describing) deleted the article and said this (emphasis added):
 * "the job of the AfD closer is not to count votes, but to determine consensus. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy... While Magdalena Zamolska clearly passes NSPORT... she doesn't pass GNG, and thus, the article must be deleted.

I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but it does suggest that de facto WP:GNG is being treated as policy which must be followed, like WP:V and WP:NPOV and the other policies. Fine, but it's not labeled as policy. So what I suggest that it either be labeled as policy or not treated as policy, one or the other.

So to that end, I am envisioning a WP:CENT discussion on elevating this page to Policy level. If it passes, then the note on top gets changed from "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline" to "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy" and commensurate changes. And if it fails, possibly this should be documented in some way, so it's clarified that it is not policy.

So I'm asking, not "should this page be promoted to policy or not" but just "is it worthwhile having a discussion over whether this page should be promoted to policy?" Obviously it would have to be a WP:CENT discussion and so a big deal. Is it worth it? If a discussion is not worthwhile, what about the fact that people are taking as policy? The vibe I get is that this not just one person but a general trend... I could be wrong about that though. If I'm not, I consider that a somewhat unstable situation... seems worthwhile to get this sorted out one way or the other? Or maybe not? Herostratus (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact I strongly back WP:N throughout WP, promoting this to policy would be disastrous, and even taking up a RFC to propose that will be futile. WP:N needs a lot of IAR-type treatment that the "guideline" label affords, where a policy label does not have as much wiggle room. Given how many words in the past circa 2008-2010 have been over this (the inclusionst-deletionists stuff), it is better to leave WP:N as an open ended guideline. That does mean that we will have AFDs that are very much in the grey line and difficult to resolve because this is a guideline, but it is far better than inflaming that war again. There's also aspects that not every page in mainspace has to meet WP:N (for example, many of our articles on small towns and villages, but that's because we also performing work as a gazetteer), so there's further subtlies in that area. We're at a point where WP:N "works", it has a few failings but it is readily accepted as a goal, but not one to implement as hard as policy without setting off a rather protracted debate among editors. --M ASEM (t) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] There are notability guidelines which more blatantly break with WP:GNG for how to determine notability; WP:PROF comes to mind. How would elevating GNG to policy affect that? Would there be an exception for guidelines like PROF, would we carry on as we are now largely determining academic notability by WP:PROF with occasional cases resorting to GNG when that produces a clearer decision, or are you proposing to totally overrule WP:PROF? (And if it is to be overruled, in which direction would it go: do the other academic publications that refer to one particular academic's work count as sources for GNG purposes, so that any well-established academic would have thousands of sources and essentially all doctoral students with published and cited works would become notable? Do brief biographies published as part of talk announcements at other institutions than the subject's employer count, so that anyone who gives an invited talk automatically becomes notable? Or do we require nontrivial articles to be written about the academic's personal life and not just their works, so that almost all academics who would remain notable would be the dead ones famous enough for published obituaries)? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is what i want to say. The actual policies and guidelines that govern the community are community consensus and practice; the consensus and practice are just expressed in the documents in project space.   The writings in project space sometimes don't reflect consensus and practice well.  (as an example, we are just now discussing adding something to the Harassment policy about it not being OK to use any space within WP to harass RW people -- stuff that gets oversighted every day, but about which the policy has never said anything)
 * In my view the writing in this document doesn't reflect consensus and practice very well in some ways, and this has exacerbated problems, because people in AfD discussions get to Wikilawyering pretty hard, and then the writing in this document appears to be important. That in turn has ... weakened community consensus in some ways, because there are notions (including ones that I have had!) stemming from this, that don't work in the guts of WP nor in practice.
 * One of the ways it falls down, I think, it not making it more clear about what this document is for. I actually had someone arguing with me, that its purpose was not to determine whether or not an article should exist.  Hm.


 * Concretely, it should tie more clearly into the other policies and guidelines.
 * User:DGG recently posted this thing to his talk page, part of which I will copy here:

"The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. An article might meet that, but fail other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it fails NOTADVOCACY, and that's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how notable."


 * That was so striking to me! So clearly said.  I somehow had never thought of N that way before (which perhaps means I should not be talking here).  (I would also call folks' attention to his Userpage where he has some useful reflections on N. )


 * And in my view, a really good N statement would emphasize the outcome - that we need to be able to craft an article is actually NPOV - where we have enough reliable, secondary sources to be able to write a Wikipedia article.    It should pull in what that means to various WikiProjects (like PROF, and like RADIO, and like JOURNALs)


 * This document starts out making a nod to NOT and to NPOV which are both mentioned in the lead, but those kind of fall by the wayside. Winding them in throughout, would strengthen the document... strengthen the sense of it.


 * There have also been calls from many, that we should "raise N standards", although there is little agreement about what that means.


 * These are big picture issues to address through a consensus testing/building process before trying to formally elevate this writing. In my view, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with all above. There is a lot of nuance in wikipedia-notability, and huge variation from one field to another.  It requires the flexibility associated with guideline.  Also, there is no need.  WP:N is directly referenced by the policy Deletion_policy.  WP:N should never be read in isolation from real policies, such as WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that failing WP:N may mean the page should be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be best not to formalise this as policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

"This my understand of the necessary implications of WP:NOT. It is my interpretation, & I think reflects the trend of decisions at AfD. It is not universally accepted; the alternate interpretation is for keeping promotional articles even if borderline notable, if it is at all possible to fix the promotionalism. In choosing how to interpret, we should follow logic & consistency, but also practical considerations. My view is that accepting even temporarily promotionalism plays into the hands of paid editors and other spammers, and that such editing has the real potential to destroy the usefulness of WP as an encyclopedia."
 * As I just clarified on my talk p.,


 * I was certainly not proposing it for formal adoption as a policy or even a guideline. The extent to which my interpretation of existing  policy finds consensus will be seen by our practice in AfD. It is sometimes said (and I agree) that  guidelines are what we consistently do.  The problem is that there is very little about notability that we consistently do. That's inevitable when the supposedly applicable guidelines contradict each other, and can only be brought into alignment by quibbling over the meaning of words, and each AfD is decided on its own without the need to follow precedent.


 * As for our notability guideline, the discussion above shows the continuing confusion between the general and special guidelines, and the inconsistency about which is followed. (For example, it was said above that the presumptive notability for Olympic athletes still requires the GNG--but I do not think there has ever been a single afd where this was actually required--whenever it is raised, the article is kept regardless. -- This is a convenient example for me to use because I have no personal interest in the topic  and could argue one way just as well as the other.  I suppose it may help if I bring my comments together in an essay, if only for ease of reference.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer to read WP:N as a special case of WP:NOR, specifically WP:PSTS. WP:PSTS limits what you can say in a section, paragraph, even sentence.  If there is nothing sourced to say in prose about the topic at all, it fails WP:N, and is prone to be deleted.  An analytical theory.
 * DGG's reading of WP:N and notability subguidelines as theory attempting to explain and predict WP:AfD is pretty good too. An empirical theory.
 * In both cases, the wording of WP:N is construction based on theory, and the real tests are elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the community should be able to reach a consensus agreement on guidance for the standards of having an article without needing to subsequently visit AfD after AfD en masse to reinforce the standards. Otherwise there isn't much use in having Requests for Comments to create guidance. For new guidance, the consensus will naturally be influenced by what discussions have already occurred, including previous AfDs. (Once guidance is in place, if a persistent divergence in practice arises, this may be an indicator that a new RfC should be held to re-evaluate the consensus view.) isaacl (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would tentatively support promoting it to policy, but I am unsure if in the current ossified and super-resistant-to-change Wikipedia system this would be possible. Plus, the difference between policy and guideline is a technical one and hardly important in the spirit of things. More importantly, we indeed need to consider whether we can have subpages, from PROF to NCYC, that can grant exemptions. We do indeed keep a lot of content based on 'fails GNG, passes subGNG policy', but this is done is a mostly haphazard manner, some AfDs are closed one way or another because there were enough bad arguments and the closing editor forgot AfDs are not supposed to be a vote... but those are wider structural problems, and I am not sure if there is any solution to those. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be solved by promoting N to policy? Nothing whatsoever.  What new problems would it cause?  Listen to Masem, above, folks: N is not a particularly good idea in the first place, and the fact that it's even supposed to be a blanket guideline leads to the inclusion of stupid and nonencyclopedic things, and the exclusion of harmless encyclopedic things.  N is a blunt instrument, not fit to purpose, and yet no other one-size-fits-all tool is anywhere less inapt.  Thus, we use it, generally, with appropriate exceptions when blindly following it leads to stupid outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One swallow doesn't make a summer. The close in question seemed to be something of a supervote by an admin who described himself as retired at the time while there is recent evidence on the other side of the ledger.  For example, see ANI where an editor was put on a tight leash for daring to nominate articles like Farukh Abitov for deletion.  That article is still worse than Magdalena Zamolska from a GNG perspective.  The reality seems to be that football fans can get out the vote more effectively than cycling fans and are able to punish those who cross them.  Shall we therefore make WP:NFOOTY a policy?  WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR are policies too and so it's a logical mess.  The real policies are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The rest is then just wikilawyering. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The question is not moving WP:N to policy--it should be clear from this discussion as well as the 30,000 AfD discussions each year that it does not quite have that universally and clearly accepted status. Eather, if we are to keep the specific language  more whether we should adjust the current WP:N guidelines to a much less prescriptive wording (which could be done by changing a few words in the introduction--the worst problem there is the unclear meaning of" presumptively".   Otherwise, the current language  does have one advantage--we all of us interested in the question have plenty of experience in arguing on the basis of the current wording, and anything else will inevitably yield a long period of total instability.


 * I want to add one key feature which any guideline for inclusion should have: it should provide a way of quickly settling the issue one way or another. It's a little crazy to spend our time debating 100 to 150 articles a day, about 1/3 of which are capable of being decided either way. If we simply had a cutoff in each field, modified by IAR (we cannot avoid modifying by IAR, because that's our most fundamental principle of discussion) we could spend our time on principled discussions of what should or should not be included--or, even better, of improving the borderline articles. (This is not limited to notability -- the same problem applies to defining what we mean by "promotional"--except the guidelines are even vaguer. I contrast this with copyvio, which does have definite rules, and most reasonably contested discussions involve one of the borderline issues in NFCC. Frankly, I would at this point accept almost any clear-cut rules--and I suggest WP:PROf as an example--there is relatively little arguing except for unusual cases -- and those who don't want to use it at all. Or even better, academic journals, which . When I came here in Sept 2006, I naively though the GNG, might be such a rule--but by December I had gotten involved in some deletion discussions, and found out how wrong I was.  DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC).
 * You did DGG in my opinion to a little off-track by equating the GNG (not then given that TLA) to 2RS. The GNG calls for sources, exemplars being independent secondary sources, and the best of these are not in fact RSs but published opinion (or analysis, comparison, etc) by a reputable independent author. Reliability is not a characteristic of a secondary source, but of a primary source. The essence of the GNG is thus whether sourced contain prose containing transformed primary source information. The details are found in the mainspace article secondary source, and the only necessary assumption is that an encyclopedia is an historiographical document. I find that this approach gives a very accurate and precise answer for the outcomes of most AfDs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Happy to pile on opposing any changes to our notability guidelines; neither in prose nor by elevations to policy status. Any such change could never see enough gain to justify the disruption of peace such a change would invariably give rise. More importantly, per: "don't fix what ain't broke", there is nothing defective with the instructions to beg a rewrite, nor a contrary thing to settle by raising its hierarchical station. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, we can certainly improve wp:n if we improve our collective interpretation of its tenets, and furthermore still if we stop applying its counsel from a one size fits all premise. For example, how often do we apply WP:NOPAGE to a subject that passes wp:gng; or, not delete a page when it fails? The fact is we do not avail ourselves to the flexibility our guidelines afford and that failing leads only one way; the wrong way. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This guideline is already treated like a policy. I have to remind myself that it's a guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We need a new category - core guidelines. Ones that are selected to be of top importance for general principles but which are too general or un-detailed to be operative as policies. That would be a good category for this guideline right now. Eventually this should be written in a way that is more calibrated in the areas that the fuzzy mess of SNG's attempts to address, and then make it a policy.  North8000  (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * All interesting points... if we did nominate this page to promoted to policy, there's very little chance it would go thru. But you never know. If if did go thru, we could make a start on trimming our article count, which is 5.4 million, down somewhat. I don't see a pressing need to greatly reduce our article count, for my part. So I quite possibly would be opposed.


 * My thought was "If it's being treated as policy, let's elevate it -- rules should follow practice", but my perception has changed from "GNG is being treated as policy" to "WP:NCYC specifically is being deprecated" which is a much smaller thing. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If that particular guideline is the problem, then it can be changed --but I'd advise just maing it stricter, not removing it. It is indeeda good idea not to make general policy changes to solve a particular localized problem.  DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the relationship between policies and guidelines are the other way around: policies set general direction and guidelines provide more detailed instructions which can be more readily modified for new scenarios. I'm undecided about the concept of core guidelines: clearly there are some guidelines more highly regarded than others, but trying to codify this feels like it would result in a lot of discussion without a lot of change in how things will work in practice. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seems to me like trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.   Ravenswing   02:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

International Notability
Could someone create some content about notability extending to foreign subjects if they are notable in their language, this was never explained to me and I fell into prodding some articles I shouldn't have. I do not want this to happen to someone else so could someone find a place to explain this? Thanks!, Alex the Nerd (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Foreign to where? Notability is no different for different nationalities — the lack of non-English sources may make finding sources to pass WP:GNG more difficult, but non-English sources are entirely acceptable, that's still the standard method of showing notability unless a more specific notability guideline is in play. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is stated, for example, at Verifiability: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia." --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind: notability guidelines vary from WMF project to project, so just because another language's wiki may have an article on a topic doesn't mean we will automatically have one. They can be useful for source discovery, obviously. --M ASEM (t) 15:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: Closure on the WP:NSPORTS discussion
The discussion about the inclusivity of WP:NSPORTS criteria is closed. The rationale was complex to summarize, yet I'll say that GNG is not replaced or superseded by NSPORTS. See more for yourselves. The closure is also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to have option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results
Recently, search results from selected sister projects—Wikivoyage (title matches only), Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote—are now active/live. Right now, an option via user preferences to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results is proposed at Village pump (proposals). --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The user preference has been created. It's on the "Gadgets" tab, the last item in the "Appearances" section.  DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede clarification in light of several SNG discussions
I've seen relatively recently several SNG talk pages discuss the relationship between SNG and the GNG, and there still seems to be confusion.

WP:N's approach is somewhat problematic is that we're not explaining the ultimate goal here of why we have the GNG and the SNG that would help make those SNG discussions clearer. To that end, I suggest we do some fixing up of the lede.

Something like:
 * On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
 * As an encyclopedia, goal is to have comprehensive stand-alone articles on topics that meet the core content policies: verifyability, no original research, neutral point of view, and respecting biographies of living persons, as well as to avoid areas that we do not cover. This generally means that we want articles that are readily sourced to independent, secondary sources that cover the topic in depth and in a comprehensive manner.
 * For some topics, this type of coverage will be readily available, and the allowance for a stand-alone article is clear. However, most topics will not have the same clarity of sourcing from the start. We do not want to prevent editors from creating such articles, hoping that other editors will help to expand those, and to provide editors time to find more obscure sources (such as print sources). At the same time, we also want to avoid stand-alone articles that do not have a chance of such expansion. We desire to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics.
 * We use notability to make presumptions if these topics can merit standalone articles that will eventually met our core content policies. A topic that is presumed notable may be written into a stand-alone article to give it the time to develop, though that presumption can be challenged in the future through merging or deletion processes if additional sourcing cannot be found.
 * Notability on Wikipedia is defined by a topic being "worthy of notice", and does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject. There are two ways one can show a topic is presumed notable:
 * It meets either the general notability guideline, or
 * It meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;
 * Article topics also must be of the type excluded by what Wikipedia is not.

(Wording is very flexible). The goal here is to explain what the target is for any article and that where there's question of whether the article can get there, we use notability presumptions to make the determination. This should resolve several of the SNG threads that seem to suggest that both the GNG and SNG are to be met, but instead brings the GNG as a general test when there is a question about sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 14:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with defining Notability as a topic being "worthy of notice"... that is a rather subjective criteria. Instead, I would say that Notability is defined by a topic "having been noticed". Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that language already exists in the lede, hence why I reused. "worthy of notice" also implies some property, an implication of the word "notability", though if we're fine with recognizing that our definition of "notability" is not the same as the standard English language definition, we certainly can go with "having been noticed". --M ASEM (t) 16:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, with your main post. It really needs be that meeting wp:gng is sufficient, otherwise the less watched sng's could be vetoing articles that meet wp:gng. But in reality, the reason sng's have somewhat of a purpose is that the ratio of coverage to desired-notability varies between fields.  In the long run IMO GNG's should calibrate itself to this and then the sngs should be eliminated.  North8000  (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not so much on eliminating SNGs. It is more that our end goal is to have a comprehensive article based principally on many independent, secondary sources. This may not happen always from the start of article creation and for newer topics, some of that sourcing may not come immediately. We don't want to stymie efforts to build articles, so the use of presumed notability is to give the benefit of doubt the topic can be expanded. The best way to so this is the GNG - if you can show some independent and secondary sources, you likely can show more. The SNGs remain alternative to that, criticia and conditions that if met, more sources exist or will come about. Regardless of the GNG or SNG, the goal is to get us to an article where there is no question about its sourcing relative to content policies. The GNG and SNGs are presumptions to allow topics to get there in a collaborative environment. --M ASEM (t) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead
The lead currently states that a topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. I wonder how that statement ended up in the lead? I personally disagree with it as think that subprojects should not be given the authority to write guidelines which are allowed to override the general notability guidelines.Tvx1 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably dating back from this Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. That said, there are two key things. First is that SNGs can only give "presumed notability", that can be challenged in an AFD. Second, it has been implicitly understood that SNG's criteria should be the type that will lead to GNG-like coverage in the future either due to more source material being available or that editors have the time to find source material in difficult-to-find places (eg print). This is partially why I suggested the section above, I think we want to make it clear that neither the GNG or SNGs are anything more than presumed allowance for a stand-alone article until you actually populate it with a good number of sources to get past that questionable level. In that manner, there is a clear goal that any article under a SNG must eventually get too. --M ASEM (t) 13:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It's very clarifying. Unfortunately though it's only theory. In reality I have seen countless AFD's where this sentence from this guideline is used as justification for keeping an article because it merely satisfies a SNG when a SNG shouldn't have that power in its own. Also the reality is that many SNG's criteria are actually not the type that lead to GNG-like coverage. So all in all I feel that having this sentence here does more bad than good.Tvx1 17:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually the way it should work. Having been over this on NSPORT several times, there's general agreement that the SNG is a presumption, the goal is to get to the GNG, but as there's no DEADLINE, this could take years. The proper way to challenge an article resting on an SNG claim of presumption rather than the GNG is to follow WP:BEFORE and demonstrate a good-faith effort that no secondary sources exist for that topic. This might require print-source scouring, and a lot more work by those wishing to delete than to keep. A hypothetical case would be a baseball player from the 1950s who played professionally all of one season with meager stats, had no career after that, and is dead. There's likely going to be no web sources about this, so to challenge properly at AFD is to show that the bulk of the print sources are just stat regurgitation, and that requires trips to the library. The onus is on those wishing to delete. --M ASEM (t) 17:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

NCORP
Just providing a notification here that we are gathering proposals for an RfC to raise NCORP standards at the Talk page of that guideline; see here. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wildfires, Notability, and Not News RfC
I was browsing wildfire articles and I noticed that many of them had no lasting impact and only had coverage from when the wildfire was happening. I was looking at WikiProject Wildfire which has a list of things under "Ever (typo isn't mine) fire is judged on a case by case basis to meet notability guidelines. Below is a list of criteria to consider. If a fire does not meet any of the below criteria is highly unlikely to be notable." My problems with this is that WikiProjects can't override guidelines and policies, the WikiProject only has 13 members, and I hate typos on an important page (nitpicking on this one, but seriously). Many of these articles have originated from that Wikiproject. Is there something that I'm missing and articles like Monticello Fire truly pass WP:NOTNEWS? SL93 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: From what I understood, if the fire was larger that 1,000 acres and had some impact on its surrounding communities (structures destroyed or evacuated) then it was worthy of being made into an article. Last year, 2016 California Wildfires, dozens of incidents were made articles of and other editors didn't ever seem to mind. That being said, I believe that if the individual fire falls under the specific notability of being part of the California fire season of its specific year or fire season (as well as burning 1,000 acres or more of grass, ch apparel or timber) then its worthy of being archived. --DanEverett45 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The guidelines set by the Wildfire project, I don't read them as "overriding" notability guidelines or attempt to become a subject-specific guideline; any wildfire article will still be judged by the GNG only. They are only suggesting from their experience that if certain conditions are met, you are going to have a good chance of finding secondary sources to get the GNG, and if they aren't met, then you are going to have a hard time, but they still default to the GNG for final say. This is completely fine by notability standards. I do think in the case of the Monticello Fire, though, that NEVENT is not met. There is no indication of secondary source coverage establishing the relative importance of the event compared to other wildfires (every source is primary news reporting during the time of the fire, save for one the following year reminding readers what harm fireworks can do). I would strongly suggest that it would be better to merge to a "List of 20xx California wildfires" which can note the major fires that do not meet NEVENT's notability guidelines for a standalone but would still be worth documenting. --M ASEM (t) 12:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem. A "by year" list is the best way to go here.  One thing I really like about the wildfire project's guidance is that they have avoided talking about a presumption of notability... and instead talk about a "likelihood" of notability.  Much more realistic. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem too. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of everything will be thrown at the high jump of GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How much weight do we assign to the fact that a subject page has a wikipage in other languages
Here is an interesting one. Sowon (singer). It has wiki pages in six other languages including Korean (the country of the subject). A request for deletion has been submitted. My feeling is that as all the other wiki projects deem the subject notable, we should defer to them and the article should not be deleted. How much weight do we place on the fact that other wiki projects deem the subject to be notable (especially the Korean one) as well as the fact that six other wiki projects deem the subject to be notable? Should we not imply notability if the primary wiki project (in this case the Korean wiki project asserts it? Patapsco913 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever. Each wiki has its own requirements for inclusion and meeting another wiki's criteria has no bearing on this wiki's criteria. The only thing that matters is whether this wiki's criteria.Tvx1 19:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * +2 ... that said, when someone or something is covered by multiple other language WPs, there is a good likelihood that there are sources that cover the person or thing (perhaps not sources in English, but sources never the less). In other words, there is a good likelihood that the subject will meet the criteria here at WP.en.  Find them and we can have an article here. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * +3 and to add to remember that we do not require sources to be in English, though we do expect editors either to seek good translations or avoid questionable/contentious material if one's using Google Translate to do the job. --M ASEM (t) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Exactly, look at those other articles for sources that helps with WP:GNG and use them in the article. It will work or it will not, which is ok since different WP:s have different rules (and editors enforcing those rules). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * +4 -- as Tvx1 correctly states, other Wikipedias have different rules for notability and inclusion, and should be even less attributable as a reliable source than the English Wikipedia is ... which is "not remotely at all."   Ravenswing   21:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it should be taken a lot more seriously than is normally done, although the answer is "none per se". AfD participants should feel obliged to examine listed sources in the subject's native language Wikipedia. They are not hard to Google Translate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, look to the sources (if the native language article even has any) but the bare fact of a wiki article cannot be taken seriously - that is textbook not a wp:reliable source, nor does that fact alone mean anyone in the native language has even looked at the issue of notability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to have a process, and that includes not basing decisions on Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that existence of articles in other languages means that such should be weighed as somewhat indicative that it could meet wp:gng.  North8000  (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the existence of a different language article on the subject should not have any weight in itsself. After all if it would, what would stop one of creating articles in different languages on subject themself and use that as an argument when af'd. If sources are present in a foreign language version they can be assessed, but that's it.Tvx1 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Note also Wikipedia is not a reliable source Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe and Tvx1, if you look carefully, what you are saying doesn't conflict with what I said. No weight in and of itself, but nevertheless it could be an indicator...the world if full of indicators.  North8000  (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ? I did not say it did conflict with what you said. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Then I think that I misunderstood your post.  North8000  (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I have review the article, and the sources, en.wikipedia as well as ko.wikipedia, and both include GNG-satisfying sources. The nominator's "sources like youtube and fan blogs are not reliable" statement is an irrelevant poisoning the well, as he has skipped the first reference which is neither.  Notability should be assessed on the best sources, not the worst.  The three "delete" !votes show no evidence of having even read the sources.  I think the question put here has been ill-posed.  It is not a matter of special consideration of articles present in other language Wikipedias, but of articles with sources in foreign languages.  AfD participants appear slack in reviewing foreign language sources, the nominator making a clumsy nomination, and AfD reviewers doing a pile-on.  Also not a complete failure to comply with WP:BEFORE, as there is an obvious merge target.  Failure to see this suggest to me that the delete !voters did not even read the article to the end of its second sentence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm picturing someone forum shopping, managing to translate bare stubs into languages of the Wikipedias with the least stringent notability guidelines and then using those articles to justify a full article here without meeting this Wikipedia's guidelines.Largoplazo (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedia (in any language) is not RS I cannot see how it can establish notability. As others have said (and based upon what little I have seen) some non English wiki's seem to have far laxer standards for inclusion. Thus we may well have a situation where the system is gamed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, giving weight solely to the existence of foreign language versions of an article opens us up to the system being gamed. One could then easily create a stub here, translate it to a number of other wiki's and then when it's Afd'd here claim "hey it exists on other wiki's so we should keep it here as well". I have actually quite literally encountered such a case. When the article on the fictitious Marshall Island football team was created for the seventh time, it was Afd'd again and the creator said: "hey wait I merely translated it from the Italian version (meaning they simply copied the fictitious information here) so we should keep" Of course that argument didn't work. I subsequently nominated the Italian and Dutch versions of the article and both were deleted for the same hoax concerns.Tvx1 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability criteria
I asked this question on the "Notability (people)" page but got no response so am repeating it here. My query is about the article Christian Guzman. I think he fails the notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"; I can't find information on him in mainstream media or in books, but he is all over the place on YouTube, Instagram and similar sites. He has 740,000 subscribers to the former and nearly a million followers at the latter. Bodybuilding.com has an interview with him, but I doubt they are a reliable source, and I wonder how they choose their interviewees. He has started a company but it does not seem to pass the notability criteria either. However, I wonder whether his large following on YouTube, Instagram etc. means that he has achieved notability by public consent, a people's icon so to speak. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to self-published, not self-promotion, and not advertorial, NOTINHERITED from a twitterfeed, etc. and not a collection of statistics would seem to say no for notability for a biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I also took a look....IMO it falls a little short. Unlike by-the-book wp:notability, I'd give a bit of cred for real world notability of almost 2 million subscribers/followers. But there are zero sources of the type needed there...no independent material on him to build an article from.   North8000  (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd go with North8000's take. Notability is certainly the factor we overwhelmingly look at in deciding whether or not to keep an article, and I'd agree that that many followers is a strong gauge of notability.  But an often-overlooked element is that there must be enough reliable material upon which to sustain an article.   Ravenswing   19:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * An absence of reliable sources to write an article is a failure of WP:V. Today's notability is not a content guideline, and notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Article creator, so grain of salt): Bodybuilding.com is one of the top sources within fitness and the bodybuilding world and Guzman has good coverage within the bodybuilding world on independent bodybuilding websites. The thing with the modern fitness world is that there are very few sources that "look" reliable because there is such a strong norm for spammy-looking websites due to magazine/website revenue being from selling workout regimes, supplements, etc.  In addition, the article's subject has been covered by People magazine (in typical People Magazine fashion), so I don't think there is any doubt that this person has been covered by significant independents sources.  Not relating to this particular case, it may be time that we consider a tailored notability guideline for YouTube vloggers, Instagram stars, etc.  We consider an academic with little or no coverage as notable so long as they have a distinguished professorship...is there some threshold of internet fame that should be considered notable?   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, as notability is purposely distinct from fame or popularity. YouTube stars can be flash-in-the-pan, whereas academic professors need to earn tenure and the like, which takes years. We're looking at the long-term picture, and a YouTube star that may be popular for 3 months and then fades away isn't appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree, especially as it is jot that hard to create fake accounts on many social media sites (and the tried and trusted method of mutual citing as well). But there is a threshold, does any one in the real give give a damn. I recall seeing how many YouTube "stars" have 100,000's of followers globally and how famous this makes them, and then recall that a TV show needs to get millions of fans (in one nation) to even get a one full season.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem too. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC).

This is more of a general note, but the wp:notability definition (and connected requirement) is trying to achieve something, i.e. to make sure that articles are are about notable topics. It would be good to someday define that in order to guide further evolution of this guideline. Right now the circular definition implied in Masem's response (wp:notability is that which complies with wp:notability) is circular and does not do that. Often these things are best answered by putting words to what people already know. My guess is that it would go something like this: Meeting wp:notability with small tilts based on the following factors: Sustained real-world notability, degree that the field is coverage-heavy or coverage light, and degree that it is an encyclopedic topic. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Has the growth of social media changed how topics become notable?
This is not a request to change the guideline... but more of a meta question that I think is worth discussing. Is the phenomenon of social media changing the way in which people and things become notable? Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes but only to the degree you now have to achieve less for people to get the idea you are famous. But (as with flash in the pans before the internet and social media) it is not lasting. It just now requires less for you to get your 15 minutes of fame.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on what meaning of "notable" you are thinking of. I think Wikipedia's standards of having an article are largely unaffected, as of yet. If you mean long-term historic interest, then it's not clear how much the bar has been affected. isaacl (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Quick answer: fame and/or popularity are not the same as notability and neither automatically confer notability so I agree with Isaacl -- as far as WP is concerned, it's largely unaffected. It really doesn't matter if something became popular by way of social media or the telegraph, it's only notable to the extent that reliable sources (that are independent of the subject) cover it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But, to pick up the point the op was driving at, conventional media now pick on social media content as the basis for their articles, thereby reinforcing social media popularity and turning it into notability. As far as WP is concerned nothing substantial has changed, only media have a larger pool to pick on. Take youTube as an example. We don't say someone with x views or y followers is notable, but the media will use that context to choose their stories which in turn makes them notable. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And thus so do we, just having a following on social media does not make you notable, being noticed by RS does.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a distinction between "fame" and "notability"... I am asking a slightly different question. We base our definition of notability on "being noticed" by independent sources... what I am wondering is this: Are there topics/subjects "being noticed" on social media that never get mentioned in other (more traditional) forms of media? Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, as if anything becomes a major phenomena it will get coverage, I think we need to see some examples of what you mean.Slatersteven (talk)
 * To generalize a bit, the question seems to be if a topic can be judged to be of long-term historic interest based on non-curated, crowd-sourced voting in the absence of curated editorial coverage. From the point of view of a tertiary source, I would say no. I feel the non-curated voting lacks sufficient editorial control to rise to the level of appropriate secondary source coverage. isaacl (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More that as to stay with the popularity of social media, many existing RSes, and the ease of making new RSes, leads to coverage of internet fads or the like that do occur on social media. It basically means there are now more possible venues for sourcing to satisfy notability. But as we generally otherwise disregard social media as sources, its not a direct influence. --M ASEM (t) 12:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Template talk:Notability#Notability tags restored on articles after AfD
See RFC at Template talk:Notability. Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC on whether WP:PROF is subordinate to the GNG
Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (surprised this wasn't announced here yet) czar  02:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing, Advertorials, and Reference bombing
I have an early suspicion that Paid editing, Advertorials, and WP:Reference bombing are closely tied issues. All three derive from external commercial pressures to promote, and their end effect on new pages is to make it very hard to quickly spot notability-failing, surreptitious promotion. If someone has the finances, organisation, and skill to produce clever advertorials, and to pay Wikipedia Paid Editors, it is completely to be expected that all the advertorials will be used to reference bomb a Wikipedia page.

These are old concepts, but I am new to them, from getting some practice with New pages patrol & Articles for creation.

In the past, when assessing an article for whether it passes WP:N, I would review all the references. Increasingly, I seem to find borderline notable articles to have reference bombed with advertorial-looking sources. Also, I seem to find weakly notability attesting sources dribbles uniformly throughout the article.

My idea is that as advice to new article/draft writers, and their reviewers, the new article writer needs to clearly identify two or three (one is too few, four is too many), notability-attesting sources. I would like to warn newcomers that if the first sources do not attest notability, and their article has many sources, it is likely to be deleted on the basis of assessment of the first three sources. If they wish to respond, they should do so pointing to the 2-3 best sources at attesting notability.

An idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think asking an editor to state their 2 or 3 sources that meet WP's requirements is a wonderful idea. I don't think warning in advance would help since most don't understand the requirements. Instead it could be the first thing reviewers ask for in a review comment or on a talk page. Some standard text with a link to WP's explanation of the sources needed and a request that the 2 or 3 be added to the comment. Then the reviewer would need to look at just those sources and could provide feedback. If in a few attempts the editor can't provide the needed sources, the article has failed. Other issues with the article can wait until notability is established, keeping the editor focused on showing it and speeding up review. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems coincidentally tied with a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) to strength notability guidelines to prevent paid/promotion editing that is able to squeak through. SmokeyJoe's idea is in line with what I was thinking there: a few sources that clearly are independent, secondary, and goes into depth. This means press releases, social media, company websites, etc. can't be counted towards that. The two issues I see: first, what NPPatrollers should do if they come across an article lacking these types of articles, should they dump them back to drafts or just tag? Second, we need to have a stronger definition or assessment of what sources should be considered for notability, particularly questioning the use of local sources as a possible sign of notability. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're blending tow different issues here. On the paid editing front, we need to recognize that the problem is undisclosed really paid editing. Nuke wp:COI which is counterproductive on the problem, and rewrite it to encourage disclosure instead of discouraging it.  On the subject of companies, you inevitably needed to start with the question of "who should get in?" ......wp:notability (maybe with a bit of influence from a SNG) should be the implementer of the answer to that question,  not the circular answer of that question.  On corporations, I would think that that answer would be to be of medium size or of of medium enclyclopedic interest.  And probably the best rue to get there would be that the coverage is (collectively) wide-ranging, in conjuction with the current criteria.  North8000  (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While paid editing is a separate issue, one observation from NCORP is that is because (disclosed or otherwise) paid editors can easily create articles on local businesses that have PR and local websites and maybe a few name drops, these will pass NPP, get into WP proper, and then be absorbed into Google and other search engines, which is the primary goal here for these businesses is to improve their findability by search engines. What NCORP is asking - since it is very hard to prune out paid editing - is to boost the notability requirements such that more evidence of notability must be asserted at the start, which is in line with what SmokeyJoe is suggesting, even though that proposal is not specifically aimed at either paid editing or corporations but general self-promotion, and pretty much echos the same concerns. --M ASEM (t) 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that that would be good advice on current commercial / business related articles. Which I think would have some influence on the process. I think that and underlying issue is that wp:notability will eventually need to be calibrated by the degree to which the topic is enclyclopedic and also by, in that field, the ratio of coverage to actual notability, and by how thoroughly well the writers characteristically work the Wikipedia system to tilt the scale in that field. By all of those measures, tougher standards for current businesses and moneymaking enterprises are good calibration.  North8000  (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit off-topic, but anybody who has visited an AfD of a small or medium size corporation will have observed that flood of suspected COI keeps that pile in. So increased rigor for NCORP would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Stricter NCORP would help - where we should presume a business notable due to some metric, but the trouble NCORP runs into is that the general presumption of notability given by the GNG - which is always considered a way to show notability regardless of the topic - without strong enforcement of the sources, allows for those small-to-medium sized businesses to get their articles in and difficult to get out. COI/paid editing is one part of the problem with NCORP but it does also extend to this page being more strict on what we expect sources that satisfy the GNG would look like.
 * This also goes back to something I suggested earlier that there are cases of articles that clearly are notable by volume of sources (Microsoft's notability will never be challenged, for example); if one considers that we have this state, then this makes the roles of the GNG and the subject-notability guidelines more rigorous, and thus strengthens the type of sourcing we'd expect to see to presume an article notable under the GNG, allow the standalone to exist to build upon. The types of sourcing that SmokeyJoe is looking to improve on goes right to this point, so it's definitely worth exploring. --M ASEM (t) 05:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This most recent discussion is really 2/3 about wp:coi which needs a complete erasure and rewrite so that it encourages rather than discourages disclosure, and doesn't define the whole world as coi. . But in the notability area, I think that recalibrating GNG to adapt to disparities would help.  And corporations are one of those areas,which have a higher prevalence of savvy (paid) editors working the gray areas of the system.  North8000  (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Brand Agency I find these exhausting. Reference bombed with many sources, someone has tried hard, doesn't it deserve to have me at lead read every source before declaring it "spam", "inherent promotion", "not notable"?  My idea is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability.  For every new AfC submission, or new article found in NPP, where the impression is strongly of non-notable promotion, the author should be immediately challenged to name the 2-3 best sources for independent reliable coverage.  Usually, the "independent" part it the hardest work, due to the common advertorial promotion of new businesses.  The articles involve for-profit companies, their products, or their CEOs.  Preferably, I would like any new page on only commercial product or organisation or person to have a requirement to put forward their 2-3 best sources for independent reliable coverage.  1 is too few.  4 is too many.  If the 3 best can't meet the notability threshold, it can't be met.  Let the author nominate the three best. This would enable AfC and NPP reviewers to be more efficiently decisive and objective.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. The problem was the subject of a VPP discussion this year. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack &#124; talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability of individual scientific papers
I was bot-summoned for a RFC in Talk:Plimpton 322 which was stated thusly: A recent article in a prestigious academic journal Historia Mathematica which received wide media coverage has led to a great increase in hits on this site and yet a group of editors, who are clearly hostile towards the article and two of whom refer to the wikipedia article as 'our' article, refuse to allow any mention of this article.

My eye caught an argument of one wikipedian to the end that "wide media coverage" is a criterion for a creation of a new article about the scientific paper in question rather than for citing it. Quite often a particular paper gains media popularity for whatever reason, including but not limited to PR efforts of a particular university or chair. So the question is: shall we have a special paragraph about notability of individual papers? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If we do, it would be over at WP:NBOOK or WP:NPROF. But I would say we need to distinguish the research done in a paper against the actual published work itself. There are frequent mainstream news stories about some research result published as a paper, which gives weight to the research that was done for it, but not the paper itself. We do have Category:Academic journal articles that have about 150 papers (roughly), and spot checking I feel they are all notable as recognized seminal works (ala Computing Machinery and Intelligence, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field) with some others having notable triggering events (Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics). I also could have sworn I saw one case of an WP article about a journal article that was about the controversy over the science (maybe cold fusion related? can't recall). As these demonstrate, notability of individual journal articles has look past the research done for it, and more how that specific article had an impact. Otherwise the research can be summarized in the appropriate topic or on the article on the academic (if it exists), using the journal article as a reference. --M ASEM (t) 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the main issue is WP:NOTNEWS — many academic publications get reviews written about them, many get best-paper awards, and a smaller but still significant number get press coverage at the time of publication. What I'd look for would be significant and lasting covering, such as publications that are primarily about the given paper (not merely about concepts from the paper) and are written significantly later than its original publication date. But maybe that is too strict a standard — would any of the recent publications in Category:Mathematics papers pass, for instance? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of all papers in Category:Mathematics papers only Algorithmic version for Szemerédi regularity partition is suspicious as to time test, but still over 20 year old. Also, as it is written, it fails WP:GNG, and IMO is is to be merged into Szemerédi regularity lemma, as I am about to suggest. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to spot check and the first one I clicked on was A Mathematical Theory of Communication, which does not directly pass the GNG or any SNG. It says it is an influential paper but it doesn't explain how.
 * A few others in there are questionable but here's one of good discussion of what makes or breaks a standalone: An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism. There is no question that the resulting Green's theorem is notable in science. But how our en.wiki presents the paper does not make any point of why this paper is otherwise important beyond the principle introduction of Green's Theory. (Maybe there is but the article doesn't explain).
 * How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension is similar, here a case of inherited notability from Mandlebrot and fractals as being one the earlier papers that he wrote about it.
 * Compare these to the cases I pulled out above from other fields, where there is a definitely argument to the importance of the paper alone, not just the science within it. Keep in mind we can always redirect these topics to appropriate articles, as the argument is not that the topics they cover themselves aren't notable. --M ASEM (t) 20:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did scan all of them and I agree with you that the notability of these articles is handled sloppily. However all of them did make some verifiable claim of notability. In case of Mandelbrot, is is even referenced: a "turning point" in Mandelbrot's early thinking on fractals.[3] Since it has other independent refs about the article, I'd say it is OK. "Math Theory of Communication" actually explains how it is notable: it introduces a host of new concepts (and it has 2 notability refs). It is also on topic, ie. about the article, not about the theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just being a paper called a turning point in a notable mathematician's biography doesn't make it notable - you're describing inherited notability. This fact can clearly be mentioned in Mandlebrot's article, and I would not be surprised that a WP article on fractals can list out the critical papers that defined the field. The Math Theory and Communication makes the claim of notability and has sources but does not expound on what those sources actually say. Why was it influential? Compare that to the previous examples I gave. I'm not saying I'm rushing to delete these, or that they can't be fixed, but if we take their present state, it says that if we are to develop notability guidelines for academic papers, they have to establish some very key points about the long-term influence of the paper, and less about the paper's contents as most of these seem to do. --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability of fiction and fiction-universe reference works
If something is included in Encylopedia of Chemistry, it's good for Wikipedia. But what about if something is included in 'Encyclopedia of Harry Potter/Star Wars'? They are a form of reference works, too. Common sense, I'd think that the difference is not only in authorship, but also in the fact that the latter will be just plot summaries. If an entry on a fictional entity is limited to plot summary, I don't think it should be allowed as proof of notability. But I couldn't find any policy to justify this argument. What are your thoughts? Which policy is relevant if someone argues that 'minor fictional element is notable because it has a plot summary paragraph or two in the Encyclopedia of Fictional Universe of X'? (If you want a more specific example, consider - is a plot-only summary of some topic found in let's say Star Wars Encyclopedia sufficient for notability?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If that work provides no transformative approach to the fiction (eg: if it just provides a plot summary/recap without analysis), that is a primary or at best a tertiary source, and as such not sufficient for notability. --M ASEM (t) 05:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That "encyclopedia" was written/edited by Steve Sansweet, a long time, high level Lucasfilm staffer, who still has financial ties to the studio. No way under the sun does coverage in such an inherently promotional source confer notability. Anyone who argues that it does, lacks understanding of what a truly independent source really is. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Cullen328, through I used this example just as an example. If you'd like to see which specific books/sources made me raise this issue here, see Articles for deletion/Outstanding elements of Babylon 5. What do you think about them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fictional characters?
Do we not have anything on fictional characters, and when to merge them into articles on the work(s) in which they appear? I'm not finding much beyond Notability (books) (and that's books-specific), and a footnote in the main WP:N page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with WP:GNG? For fictional characters it works like charm, in my experience. No independent coverage - no article. Period. Some 5-8 years ago a huge amount of in-universe fancruft was killed in this way in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tip of an iceberg, see Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Long ago we attempted to create WP:NFICT (notability for fictional elements) but never got any type of consensus due to different expectations. At the current time, fictional characters are expected to meet the WP:GNG at minimum, which generally requires details about their concept and creation, and/or how they were received. If they can't meet this, they should be merged. --M ASEM (t) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm good on the GNG myself. Very few fictional characters are so famous, and are written about in third-party sources, that they can't be handled by List of The Turgid Banana characters or somesuch.   Ravenswing   20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In most cases, a list of characters is more appropriately included in the article on the work itself. Merge. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:WAF provides the best remedy for excessive stuff on fictional characters. If there is no source for a not in-universe statement about the character, then it needs to be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But per my thread just above, what about a counter that it is in a plot summary like independent source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence of an independent "plot summary like" source might demonstrate that the work (TV show, movie, play etc.) is notable... but it does not mean that every character mentioned in the summary is notable. Depth of coverage is important, and a plot summary rarely gives much depth. Blueboar (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A plot summary is in-universe and doesn’t constitute encyclopaedic material. It’s like an illustration there to help but not coverage itself. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Plot summary is a direct derivative of the primary source and thus still primary source material, not secondary source material, and therefore doesn’t contribute to meeting the GNG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the following claim really credible?
(I started writing a Talk note questioning a phrase in Notability in the English Wikipedia, and feel the need for resolving not just the original conundrum but the thoughts it plowed up. I turned to Notability, but this is clearly about the notability of a given article rather than the credibility of information contained therein… but reading it and its Talk seem to be right at the edge of providing what I need. If my questions are already clearly answered elsewhere, please point me that way!!)

Is it overreach for section Criteria#Sourcing to claim that
 * Content not based upon reliable sources may be deemed original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.

when there is in fact (and easily demonstrated) so much OR extant in WP?

I mean, I began using WP years ago NOT as a definitive source, rather as a GREAT place from which to begin research. As "search engines" (specifically G**gle) have become ever-increasingly about pushing eyeballs and politics rather than supporting even superficial research, this rôle has only grown.

While an early (and insanely public) validation of the potential for crowdsourcing, WP by its very nature is not a source reliable enough to be cited by WP, which many people (including myself) find entirely acceptable: it's a known bias and therefore can easily be filtered for by any rational person. It appears, though, that millions of people turn to WP as a primary, permanent, authoritative source. Not so much trusting that the information provided is demonstrably true AND that it properly presents the entire scope of the topic. Rather, as never seemingly having developed the ability to determine that online sources might even possibly NOT be factually perfect. (FWIW, itself a significant motivation to perpetually test notability.)

Should this be commented upon in Notability in the English Wikipedia? where else?

Is WP contributing to such incuriosity, and therefore to widespread mob stupidity? Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation of GNG v SSG, especially at AfD
According to the decision reached by this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline. I don't suppose anyone would say they do. The converse, however, is a number of people who follow WP:AFD persistently arguing that GNG therefore supersedes any and all SSGs. That is NOT what the VPP decided and it is a significant issue.

The introduction of WP:GNG includes:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
 * 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

"Either...or..." means what it says. GNG and SSG are equal. If they are not equal, then that introduction must be amended to state the true condition. Similarly, taking WP:NSPORTS as an SSG example, its introduction opens with (including the bold highlighting):

"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."

Again, "either...or...". Given that the first sentence specifies "meet the GNG" you might think that meeting the SSG is a first step towards GNG qualification, except that the GNG itself (as above) says "either the GNG or an SSG", so the SSG is ambiguous. In addition, there have been cases where a subject has passed GNG because of widespread coverage but has nevertheless failed the appropriate SSG, so it can be one or the other in that sense.

Neither of the guideline intros says that the one supersedes the other so how can certain individuals argue that GNG takes precedence and that an SSG qualification must be over-ruled? If GNG does take precedence, then WP:GNG and the various SSGs need to be amended. Jack &#124; talk page 08:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The several SNGs are not of equal precedence or scope. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To what? Each other? The fact that they are both "guidelines" is proof of exactly that. Woolly, meaningless non-policies which people can decide to follow or not follow as to their will and personal opinion. There's one question which practically nobody could be bothered to answer in every recent cricket biography's AfD debate. "If this notability guideline (which is identical to every other major sports notability guideline) is "wrong", how can it be fixed?" To say "this guideline is wrong" without saying "this is how to fix it", on a discussion where we are trying to judge an article's inclusion based on already existing notability criteria, is cowardice. Bobo. 11:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The recent AfD debates have rendered the need or desire for anyone to ever create any cricket biographies for cricketers for whom it is insultingly obvious they meet WP:CRIN requirements, completely pointless. Bobo. 11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the AfD debate for L. Dinaparna has been closed as non-consensus, leaning towards keep, while the other similar AfD debates have all been closed as delete. Where were all the WP:CRIN complainers hiding here? Bobo. 12:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SNGs are not equal to each other, and your approach seems to be one seeking homogeneity. You can't have it because different sorts of topics get different treatment.  Historical, scientific and scholarly topics get an easier go than commercial products, for example.  Wikipedia is well-suited to attempt comprehensibility for some topics, but not for others.  I find it best explained as "Wikipedia has an anti-promotion bias".  If there is a conceivable promotional motivation for hosting the material, the notability test is more strongly applied.
 * Please forgive my late response - I wouldn't label it as homogeneity. The whole point of using CA and CI as sources is that it can be proven by secondary sources that every cricketer "reaches" the same level of subject-specific notability. By referencing these or providing them as external links, this can be clearly seen by anyone who doubts this. Bobo. 11:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The SNGs are explicitly non-equal. Notability (sports) is explicitly subservient to the GNG.  Notability (academics)  and Notability (organizations and companies) are written up as independent.
 * They are all guidelines because they defy simple formulaic objective criteria. The GNG is widely believed to be the best and most objective, but WP:PROF is widely accepted as providing an alternative reliable indicator that topics will be found notable when tested.  Some are bothered by apparent multiple standard, but I see underlying consistency.  It is complicated, but can be explained.  Evaluating secondary sources for academics is very non-trivial, and so WP:PROF finds another way, provides an alternative quick test for similar reliability.
 * You're upset by articles on athletes being deleted? I would explain this as due to the source coverage being too factual, secondary sources require commentary, analysis, comparisons, opinion, or some other transformation of the basic facts.  I would advice you to seek mergers of articles being deleted.  Proposents for deletion often overlook the WP:BEFORE requirement to seek to consolidate information from non-Wikiped-notable topics by merging to a broader scope article.  Are all crickiters noted for thier qualities independently of their teams?  I think the community mostly thinks not, and that cricketers who mostly only played in one notable team should be covered only in the article on that team.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for being "upset", it's true but not entirely fair. And every time any single person has suggested that articles be merged, they've been suspiciously quiet as far as the "line in the sand" by which we should decide to merge/not merge articles which still shows neutrality. And the source material "being factual"? That's an odd complaint. We are attempting to demonstrate that, according to secondary sources, and guidelines by which we have stuck for 13 years and never gone wrong, the individual passes some form of notability criteria (which for cricketers has always been WP:CRIN - a guideline which has never been "challenged" insofar as the basic guidelines as relate to first-class players, have ever had to be changed. Bobo. 11:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind - notability guidelines at a project level that have not be vetted at a larger scale are generally not considered acceptable, particularly if they are more inclusive than the appropriate SNG or the GNG. We had this problem with mixed-martian arts athletes several years back, finding there was a walled garden around a notability guide that the interested editors had developed without wide concensus, which had to be taken apart, deleting several articles. I know cricket has its own section at NSPORT which should be the notability guide for it, and the project can provide more advice, but it can't go more inclusion (which when I read through it, I think it does) without community consensus. --M ASEM (t) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While this is not "wrong" in the practical sense, it's a reason I've been trying to come up with a better approach that makes notability, the relation between it, the GNG, and SNGs, and AFD/BEFORE more clear. I've said this elsewhere, but our ultimate goal, given an infinite amount of time, is to have high quality articles on topics where there is zero question why we have the standalone article - no one will ever challenge World War II for deletion, for example. But we recognize that we have no deadline, and it takes a lot of time to get articles in that shape, so we want to prefer an approach that gives leeway for topics that are likely to be notable while still avoiding the problem of self-promotion, etc. This is where the GNG itself fits in - any topic you can show that there is some reasonable amount of coverage in secondary sources, that's a good sign more can come, so we'll let you have that standalone. But that can be challenged - hence the presumption of notability - as long as someone shows, per BEFORE, there is no more sourcing available or likely to come to improve on that. (That takes effort, and favors retention). But we further recognize that there are some topics where secondary sourcing even takes time to come around but there are achievements that likely will lead to that, so that's why the SNGs are there, as alternatives to the GNG for the presumption of notability. They still can be challenged on that presumed notability, and here, that's likely going to be showing if there are a lack of any secondary sources for the topic. But that still needs a thorough search per BEFORE).  So in this scheme, the GNG and the SNGs are at equal levels - they grant articles a safe allowance to remain on WP to be expanded on (what we want on an open wiki) until there is no question if they are notable, and BEFORE is presented to avoid rapid-fire deletions when some might question that notability.
 * And to stress, nothing here limits deletion of articles by other policies like NOT and BLP. Even an article editors might all agree is clearly notable may fail NOT and be deleted. That's why Notability is a guideline, because it serves the other policies. --M ASEM (t) 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea behind SNG criteria is that if a subject/topic can meet the criteria, then the subject/topic is likely to pass GNG as well. Conversely, if a topic passes GNG then it is likely to  pass one of the SNG criteria as well.  However, if one or the other fails, then it becomes unlikely that this dual passing of guidelines will be true.  If a topic can not pass GNG, then it is unlikely that there will be sources to support saying it passes the SNG... and if the topic can not pass any SNG, then it is unlikely that it will pass GNG.  Note that most of our SNGs use the phrasing: "X is presumed to be notable if "... that word ("presumed") is important.  A presumption of notability is not the same as a guarantee of notability.  A presumption of notability means we give the topic/subject an initial "benefit of the doubt" at AfD... it does not mean it gets a "free pass" at AfD.  Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely the problem. The words "likely" and "presumed" are woolly and undefinable, and renders the whole guideline entirely pointless. Bright-line criteria are the only way to ensure neutrality. The problem is with those who disagree with the bright-line criteria who chicken away from offering their own, neutral, workable solution. Bobo. 13:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not entirely a problem of the guidelines. Look at WP:42, which was cleaned up to align with WP:N, and then the GNG-centrists moved back with a goal of teaching newbies the GNG-centrist POV.  The GNG-centrists is also the influence working at NSPORTS.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG presumes notability just as much as the SNGs. The goal is to get to a high quality article that heavily relies on secondary sources, so that there's no "presumption" of notability (eg, we never would question the notability of World War II). However, when sources are scarce, both the GNG and SNGs are reasonable tests for determining if there is enough demonstration of sourcing to allow a standalone article on a topic for the purpose of allowing it to flourish with editors once they do the research. So in this regard, the GNG proper (not notability) is equal footing to the SNGs. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * L. Dinaparna - created March 15, 2009
 * Robert Mason - created May 18, 2009
 * R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) - created December 3, 2006
 * Tom Cranston - created December 16, 2008
 * Is it just me who finds it strange that the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade take, at the very least, eight years to come out of the shadows? Where were they hiding? Bobo. 13:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they spent all that time searching for sources... and waited to propose the articles for deletion until they were sure that they could not find any.
 * I think this shows the right approach, and a correct balance between SNG and GNG - we should be initially reluctant to delete... and initially assume sources exist... but we should be willing to delete if (after due search) it turns out that our initial assumption was wrong ... and that no sources exist after all). Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources used to create the article were exactly the sources quoted in the external links. Perhaps I've been making a mistake all along by unintentionally treating "Sources", "References" and "External links", as the same thing, but if people who are reading the article haven't checked the external links to find that we would be repeating the exact same information three times, I don't think they've evaluated the article closely enough.
 * Unless we quote every single scorecard and every single piece of biographical information from exactly the same pages as we were working from, repeating the sources and the references twice in an article which stretches to a single paragraph, seems like wasted time and effort.
 * Frankly the only thing I've learnt from all of this - aside from the fact that people aren't able to follow painfully simple guidelines - is that people take WP:ONESOURCE a lot more seriously than they used to and it's probably worthwhile quoting both main cricketing reference/stats external links equally - especially given as one is now behind a paywall. Bobo. 13:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal. Using a word like "presumed" in a guideline is unsatisfactory because anyone can presume anything and when you have what amounts to a clique operating at AfD and playing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT card, it becomes a significant issue. GNG currently states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and it uses the word "presumed" to mean that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included".

This needs to be changed to an unambiguous directive which states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is deemed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" where the word "deemed" means that "significant coverage in reliable sources ensures that a subject should be included unless it fails WP:NOT". Jack &#124; talk page 18:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Presuming" things is not something you can govern by absolutes. "Presuming" is for woolly undefinable nonsense. Oh yeah. Like GNG. It's the fact that people spend so long "presuming" without being bothered to actually read what's going on, have a bare knowledge of guidelines, or know the (incredibly basic) notabliity guidelines towards which WP:CRIC and every other sports Wikiproject works, which is gradually destroying WP:CRIC as a project. Bobo. 18:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No. That would effectively raise notability to a policy from a guideline. That has been brought up several times, and the community has always landed on keeping this as a guideline (though probably our most prominent non-policy level document.) A presumption of notability, as this page makes clear, is simply the presumption that we will have an article. It does not guarantee it. That presumption can be argued against at AfD for either the GNG or a SNG for reasons such as being a BLP violation, a violation of WP:NOT, inability to passWP:V, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point of notability being a "guideline" is that it can be flouted willy nilly by whoever decides that individual, widely agreed upon notablity criteria, doesn't match up to their own personal standards. Working to absolutes is the only true way to neutrally tackle a project without resorting to people whining "I don't like it" every third comment in every AfD debate. Bobo. 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony, the proposed wording does not enable BLP, NOT and WP:V issues to prevail and it remains a guideline because it is saying that the article is deemed to be suitable providing it does not breach NOT, etc. The aim is a concrete guideline to replace what Bobo rightly calls the current woolly one. I notice that you have said "either the GNG or a SNG" which is what both GNG and SSG agree upon and that is the big issue where the "don't like it" clique is concerned. The "either GNG or SNG" ruling must be enforced. Thanks. Jack &#124; talk page 18:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack, I will repeat what I said earlier today with regard to the current fashion in willy-nilly deletionism: "The recent AfD debates have rendered the need or desire for anyone to ever create any cricket biographies for cricketers for whom it is insultingly obvious they meet WP:CRIN requirements, completely pointless." Why should people like you and I, who have been working at this project for 13 years, who have followed every single guideline in the book, and indeed defined guidelines as we have gone along when they have not met general standards, bow to people who are unwilling to suggest new guidelines to work by when they find our 13 years' worth of work dissatisfactory? I don't know about you but I consider it something of an insult to our years of work. Bobo. 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bobo, I personally think AfD should be restricted to experienced editors with at least 30k edits who can demonstrate understanding of a wide range of policies and guidelines. Most of the people in the don't like it clique simply don't know enough about the site and are, if you like, unqualified to make a judgment on, as you say, other people's work. Bu the way, do you support or oppose the wording proposal? Jack &#124; talk page 18:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even on the L. Dinaparna AfD debate we are dealing with a kid with 13 months' experience and a confirmed sockpuppet. Bobo. 18:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget this on WT:CRIC... Disgusting incivility. Bobo. 18:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at Articles for deletion/K. de Silva where I am being told that NSPORTS is superseded by its own FAQ and that we ignore the current wording of GNG because it "probably needs changing", meaning that a person with 15k edits doesn't like NSPORTS. Jack &#124; talk page 18:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)Jack, I'm not commenting on your adaptations to the guideline before we have interaction from someone else. We can't unilaterally go about discussing adaptations to basic inclusion criteria, in order to make them even more basic, without being able to reach those who fail to understand how basic, neutral, and universally applicable they should be. As a friend I know what I think. As a project-member, I reserve my judgment until further input is made. Bobo. 18:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It needs to be stressed again that we have chosen "presumed" not because any editor can chose to presume or not, but because we consider it a Rebuttable presumption - it can be challenged later if the article can't expand beyond the basics of a GNG or SNG coverage. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with any editor being allowed to presume things is that they often do so with no respect for years and years of policy and guideline making, discussing, and refining. This is where you have users who were probably babies when me and Jack were first editing Wikipedia, deciding that articles which have been around for all these years suddenly don't meet their POV standards. "Presume" implies personal opinion based on nothing but point-of-view - and when the word "presume" is used, it's generally an unrounded personal opinion based on zero guideline or policy. Unless we count WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a policy. Now there's an idea... Bobo. 20:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an article just closed as delete, where "deletion is never policy based." Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All this having been said... I would definitely favor doing a mass removal of the phrase "is presumed to be notable" -- replacing it with "is "likely" to be notable". Then people would better understand that the SNG criteria are not absolute guarantees of notability, but indications of the likelihood of notability. Guidance, not rules. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, "presumption" is not taken to be an editor's personal opinion, it's a bit of legalese. You show that the basics of the GNG or an SNG is met, and we are going to let you have that article, unless someone does the legwork of proving no further sourcing exists. Now whether the GNG/SNG threshold is met, or if there are other policy reasons like NOT or BLP to reject the article, that's different. But we're not talking about a solitary editor's presumption here. That's further while we don't want to change it to "likely" because that removes the reasons for BEFORE at AFD. --M ASEM  (t) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for checking whether further sourcing exists, and I'm saying this for the third time recently, the only thing that has come from all these cricket AfDs for me is that I am learning that people are taking WP:ONESOURCE a lot more seriously than before. With eight years' worth of retrospect (worth noting that the content of the articles in question that were sent to AfD were basically unchanged in the eight years between them being created and people suddenly deciding to take issue with them, and that the relevant notability criteria had not changed in the intervening years), perhaps I would have quoted both in the External links rather than just one. Especially as my preferred source is now behind a paywall (although the current paywall is artificial and can be easily bypassed). As far as sources v. external links is concerned, I see no basic difference in most of the cricket articles I created, as the external link is the main "source" of my article text. Bobo. 07:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think presumption is what is intended, that without being rebutted, a topic meets the one requirement of WP:N, that a topic is worthy of notice. Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability and noticability are two different things, surely... "worthy of note" would be more accurate. This is where the real woolliness exists, between general "notability" and supposedly "strict" SNG requirements - which in terms of WP:CRIN, and almost any other competitive team sport present on Wikipedia, are consistently defined. Bobo. 06:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the term "Notability" (as used here on WP) is Wikipedia jargon, and does not really mean "worthy of notice"... it means "Has already been noted". Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which implies that if we know something passes a specific guideline and we can prove it by providing adequate secondary evidence, this is enough to save it from AfD. As we have proven on WP:CRIC, this isn't necessarily the case... Bobo. 11:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Not all guidelines provide a criteria that clearly is "worthy of notice". For example, NBIO acknowledges receiving major awards like the Nobel. That's clearly indicative of something they have had to do that was worthy of note, so we can safely presume there are secondary sources. Other criteria are more based on observing patterns that if some things happen, there is a strong chance more sources will follow. The principle criteria of NSPORT is this, that if they have played at a professional level, then between the combination of their pro playing and amateur/college days, the person will be worthy of note. Those are the cases that tend to be most disputed, but keeping in mind that there is no deadline and that BEFORE must be completed before the AFD is presented. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would amend what Masem said slightly... "The principle criteria of NSPORT is this, that if they have played at a professional level, then between the combination of their pro playing and amateur/college days, the person will be worthy of note is likely to have been noted". In other words, it is likely that sources establishing notability exist, even if the sources have not (yet) been cited in the article. The presumption of notability does not mean the subject is notable... it means there is a strong potential that the subject is notable.  And thus we should hesitate to nominate the article for deletion, and search for those potential sources.  Now, if you have searched and still can not find the necessary sources to establish notability, then it is fine to say... "nope, despite the potential, the subject is not notable after all"... and nominate the article for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's more correct. It's also why we have BEFORE and why it weighs heavily in favor of inclusion once you have clear passage of the basic GNG or SNG requirements for the topic. We want it to develop. --M ASEM (t) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How in-depth do sources need to get?
So, I'm looking to save Nikhil Pahwa from deletion as I believe the subject is notable with significant reliable coverage. However, other editors disagree stating that there's "a lack of indepth sources to show notability", "Fails GNG", and "WP:TOOSOON". However, I believe that a Wired print article on him titled "A real-life David and Goliath: the Indian 'web warrior' who took on Facebook and won", and a Forbes article on him titled "Meet The Man Who Derailed Facebook's Plan To Provide Free Internet In India" are both notable and sufficiently in-depth to qualify for Wikipedia. (Pahwa is the aforementioned "web warrior" and "The Man Who Derailed Facebook".) This is besides the fact that his activism has garnered a lot of newspaper and web coverage and he is considered an expert. So when does "depth" become sufficiently "in-depth"? How is this quantified?—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Notability and lists and Lead and selection..."?!?!?
I really didn't want to start a discussion over such a trivial, and obviously right correction. Though, I knew it was inevitable somebody would come along to make me do it with Twinkle, or some other tool that allows for quick reversions on new editors with impunity, but without any real investigation into the edits. Anyway, rant over. Now, to the issue: WP:NNC previously read this craziness; "Notability and lists and Lead and selection...", and I corrected the links here to pleasantly read; " Notability of lists and List selection criteria.". I was reverted by User:Xxanthippe with the claim that I need to discuss it in order to correct the word "Lead" to the word "List". However, the link in question, which is WP:LSC, stands for List Selection Criteria, and the word "Lead" does not appear anywhere in the entire section where the link points to. So, "Lead" is not only incorrect, it's not even the subject of that sentence. I have undone the reversion, deciding to go ahead and waste my time starting this discussion to prevent anyone from going into convulsions over the thought somebody new made a simple correction to the guidelines without due process, and as a courtesy gesture to indicate my desire to prevent edit warring. Huggums537 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following the WP:BRD convention which all editors, new or old, are expected to observe. It would be better to do the talk first before making a change to such a central policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC).
 * I will accept your thank you since I took your suggestion to at least discuss the edits in spite of the imposition. Although technically, the edits show I actually followed the much less imposing "Bold, revert, revert" convention which all editors (new or old) can also expect to be observed at: BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Huggums537 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability considerations for leaders of U.S. recognized Native American tribe
While going through nominations at WP:AFD today, I ran across Articles for deletion/Richard Sneed. I found myself on the fence about what to do here. Abstractly, I wonder if the leader of a federally recognized Native American tribe is sufficient in and of itself to pass WP:NPOL. There's nothing in any guideline anywhere that I've been able to find that speaks to this. I've cast about in the archives here as well hoping to find some guidance, but have found none. I note from the United States Department of Justice Archives that federally recognized Native American tribes are "domestic dependent nations". Is it a stretch therefore to consider that the leader of such a nation satisfies the first point of WP:NPOL? I don't think we should be looking at this through the lens of population requirements, but there are nations in the world with lesser populations than various Native American tribes (Tuvalu and Nauru for two examples). Maybe there's parallels to self governing states within another country's overall political structure, such as Niue, Christmas Island, or Montserrat? I'm curious what people think. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with the AfD nominator in that particular instance. I can't find much on him besides mention in passing. So he, in particular, doesn't seem to be notable. As to guidance given in a subguideline, is there an indication that this case is exceptional and most such leaders would pass the GNG? If not, it wouldn't be useful (and in fact would be counterproductive) to give guidance stating they're likely to, but if so that might be useful to add to the guideline. My suspicion, though, is that some of these individuals will be notable, some not, and we're best leaving it on a case by case basis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this discussion, the specific case isn't of concern to me. I'm really just concerned with the abstract case. We have leaders of nations and autonomous regions within nations that pass WP:NPOL only because of their office. Here, with Native American tribes, which are regarded as nations by the U.S. government, we have leaders of autonomous nations within a nation. To me, it seems like a similar case. If we treat the latter one way, we should treat the former the same way, or vice versa. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Federally recognized tribes are technically sovereign, and certainly their leaders are in a position superior to state/provincial legislators, who are accorded presumptive notability by NPOL.  Now perhaps NPOL's too loose, and far fewer of them could pass the GNG as the guideline presumes, but is that a can of worms we're wanting to open?  That being said, I'm comfortable with finding that such a leader does meet NPOL.   Ravenswing   23:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree and think that NPOL would imply such leaders are inherently notable. It is certainly the case that other articles (which would otherwise fail GNG) are only kept because of passage of NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the entire guideline. NPOL does not say that those who meet the criteria are inherently notable... it says they are likely to be notable, but that this is not a guarantee. Big difference. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, that's the text. Notability guidelines all over Wikipedia have similar disclaimers.  And anyone with the briefest experience at AfD/PROD knows that (for instance) "Soandso was a state representative in Montana from 1912-1914, therefore meets NPOL" is almost invariably a discussion-stopper, and few attempts at "The subordinate notability criteria be hanged, there just aren't any sources out there all the same" ever succeed.  I'd say it is a guarantee when the vast majority such articles brought to deletion pass, in the great majority of cases an editor thinks "Dang, he played two top-flight matches in 1886, why bother?", and it's disingenuous to assert otherwise.   Ravenswing   11:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as we are working under the "presumed notability" context (allowing for a stand-alone to be created, but still can be challenged if one can prove there are no further sources under WP:BEFORE), then this should be reasonable. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When I say "inherently notable" I meant highly presumed to be notable, outside of exceptional circumstances. AusLondonder (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again... read the entire guideline. NPOL does not even use the stock “presumed” language. It uses “likely”.  Yes, we should hesitate before we nominate these articles for deletion (and seriously search for sources) but if that has been done and sources can not be found, a nomination for deletion is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur in theory. In practice, the 'presumed' notable part falls apart on first inspection. We have articles for footy players who have appeared in one or very few games. Same goes for some various other sports. When taken to AfD, they pass. That's common practice. Anyway, we're off on a bit of a tangent. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sources and the definition of organizations
Notability guidelines require multiple sources to establish notability. Several publications by one person or organization are considered to be one source, not multiple sources. My question is, are multiple articles by different authors over a long period of time but published in one newspaper considered to be one source, or multiple sources? In other words, is a newspaper considered to be an organization for the purposes of establishing notability? A similar question would be, are multiple books written by different authors but published by the same publisher considered to be one source, or multiple sources? In other words, is a book publisher considered to be an organization for the purposes of establishing notability? Ungathering (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are no dependence ties in play - that is, a topic that a publisher may have a financial or other key interest in - then multiple authors from the same work or publisher would be generally all independent sources and count separately for notability, though we'd still want to see an entirely separate source to improve that. Such a situation, if that's all the topic's sourcing can get after a thorough review, could be seen as problematic, but this is really depends on the case. --M ASEM  (t) 19:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem's last point... to answer the question properly, we would need to know the specifics - which organization are we talking about, and which newspaper? If there is only one newspaper in the world covering an organization, I would certainly wonder why that was the case.  The lack of coverage in other sources would raise red flags for a potential conflict of interest... but whether those red flags amounted to an actual conflict of interest (or not) would depend on an examination of the specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell
The nutshell is being widely quoted in AfD discussions as meaning that WP:N refers to the attention given to the subject, rather than being anything to do with sources. Under this interpretation, any article with one source saying that a subject has lots of attention is sufficient to pass.

Is the nutshell officially part of the policy? Can I quote it in AfD as representing the meaning of WP:N? Dysklyver 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have a single reliable source (per WP:RS that says a topic got wide-spread attention, that is a reasonable presumption for notability, but puts a demand that someone should be trying to add where that widespread attention came from. If subsequently to that, someone does a thorough search of other sources (print included) and finds nothing to support that, then the presumption was wrong and deletion should happen. --M ASEM (t) 18:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two different "nutshells". One is an accepted high level summary of policy, while the other shorter summary is not yet vetted by the community. They are WP:Nutshell, and WP:NUTSHELL, respectively. To which nutshell are you referring? Huggums537 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This: Dysklyver  19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks very much for clearing that up. I now see you were talking about the WP:N nutshell on this project page. I stand corrected since there are actually three "nutshells" you could have been referring to if you include the "nutshells" on an individual project page. I guess I got confused since the discussions from somewhere else over at AfD were brought up, and the nutshell presented here never even entered my mind. So, thanks again for clarifying. As to your question, I would say it's safe to quote the nutshell. The nutshell should represent the policy well enough to be quoted, or else it shouldn't even exist. Huggums537 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I forgot to mention that while I think it's probably ok to quote from the nutshell, I believe quoting directly from the body has a bigger impact because the very existence of your question demonstrates the nutshell can be seen as not holding the same weight as the content in the body. Quoting from the body is better, and it might be helpful to let the folks over at AfD know that too. In fact, I'm surprised they aren't already aware of that. If given the choice, I would just about always choose to quote from the body over the nutshell, unless the nutshell were the only choice I had, and if the nutshell were the only choice I had, well then, I'd be in quite a predicament... Huggums537 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, note that the OP is trying to undermine arguments I have made at AfD ("his" AfDs, to be more precise). He wants to skip the lede and nutshell of WP:N and get right to the good stuff, meaning arguments he can use to get articles deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would state that differently, as, WP:N is poorly organized and is at risk of becoming a coatrack for WP:GNG. WP:Notability contains a blur of ideas involving both WP:N itself and WP:GNG.  It contains a rationale section which technically is not a part of the standard, and in practical terms is a political compromise to retain ideas rejected years ago as incompatible with our core content policies.  The nutshell is the best overall description of what is happening.  The nutshell is the only place in today's guideline in which the word "evidence" appears.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your predicament. This post actually got me interested in the AfD area, and I've registered my first argument here. It appears to me that many are just plain delete happy, and provide no real arguments to justify deletion, but rather randomly toss out WP:THIS and WP:THAT without citing any facts to back up the claims. It's all too easy for anyone to claim WP:THIS or WP:THAT, and provide absolutely nothing to support the claims. What truly amazes me is the amount of support that this ridiculous method seems to garner by the number of people who will agree with them. It's scary to think that there may be that many who apparently don't know how to do their own independent evaluation of an article. I've looked at a few of your arguments, and I respect your position to adhere to the WP:PRESERVE, and WP:DELETE policies, even if they seem to be somewhat minority viewpoints. Huggums537 (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dysklyver: Dysklyver, thanks for your recent edit to the AfD where I made my first argument. Perhaps my assessment alluding that some volunteers at AfD might be inept was a bit hasty since I have observed, by your contribution, that you seem to know how to conduct the evaluation of an article just fine, even if it might be a bit on the critical side. However, constructive criticism is one way to build better articles. Huggums537 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the wikilabel that best describes how I look at articles is the Immediatism. I generally think that unless an article can be pretty good and reliably sourced at any given time, then it has a problem. I will point to TUC (cracker) and Filipinos (snack food) as what Unscintillating must be referring to if that helps at all.
 * [insert begins here] And Cheese Nips. Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) [insert ends here]
 * Yes good point, can't forget the cheese nips. Dysklyver  14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (also as a helpful aside,  won't ping me, you need to use   or other 'ping' template from Template:Reply to and make sure you don't use subst: on it.)  Dysklyver  12:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I reformatted my comment because I actually wasn't trying to ping you since I knew you were probably watching the page. Some people dislike being pinged if they are watching the page anyway. (I've seen a few people speak up about it before) I guess I should have known it would appear I was attempting to ping by responding in that format. (It's common to reply using that format in other venues, and I must remember this isn't a social media site like other venues...) Anyway, thanks for being helpful, and for the links you provided. Huggums537 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I viewed the discussions for deletions, noticing all three of them were relisted twice and eventually kept. This leads me to conclude that maybe I was wrong about Unscintillating having the minority viewpoint, and perhaps it could be Dysklyver bearing the minority position. Anyway, the arguments seem fine at TUC, and Filipinos. However, neither of you seemed to be willing to accept perfectly legitimate parts of the current guidelines in the Cheese Nips discussion. Rejecting WP:WHYN because it was rejected 10 years ago is just as unreasonable as rejecting the nutshell only because it isn't part of the body. I think it's just as reasonable to accept WP:WHYN for quoting as it would be to accept the nutshell for quoting. At any rate, these discussions have led me to discover a small issue I found with WP:WHYN, which I will be bringing up in a new section very soon, and I hope to get the opinions of you both in that new topic. Thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Censorship
Certain incidents throughout history would have significant media coverage, both national and international, if not for censorship of certain topics for news that could make a government look bad, ex an aviation accident. This should be taken into consideration for notability guidelines because an incident that would otherwise receive significant attention would be kept quiet and mentioning it would be banned in newspapers. (I am specifically referring to aviation accident involving the Tupolev Tu-104 in the Soviet Union during the era of the "iron curtain") For these incidents, it is hard to measure prolonged media coverage because archives will often be recently released despite such incident happening decades past. Hence I argue that censorship should be accounted for in the amount of media coverage an incident gets relative to the intensity of the incident.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined solely based on media coverage: that would actually be primary sourcing as compared to long-term coverage in things such as books or later media, which is secondary. The issue in those cases is not notability, but verifiability. If Wikipedia cannot verify information on a topic we can't have it, regardless of how important it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD request
Quick question - where can I request an AfD? I don't want to create an account. I'd like to nominate List of cities and counties in North Alabama because it essentially duplicates List of cities and towns in Alabama and List of counties in Alabama and also the material should be included in North Alabama. Also, it was created more than ten years ago when there weren't as many guidelines for these lists. Thanks 146.229.240.200 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Usually WT:AFD is used to request AFDs, however, in this case, I don't really understand the argument. Do you think merging the list back to North Alabama is the correct way to handle it (despite WP:SPINOUT)? Then why not just do that yourself? Starting a deletion discussion when you actually want to keep the material will likely result in a speedy keep. Regards  So Why  08:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll do that. But if I get reverted what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.240.200 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If someone disagrees with your edits, try to discuss it with them on their talk page or the article's talk page. You can find a lot of information on resolving such disputes at Dispute resolution. Regards  So Why  15:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on journalistic independence
See Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) for an RfC on notability's independence concept. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Killed. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

NCORP pre-RfC discussion
If you like please comment on proposed language to raise NCORP standards. I intend to launch an RfC Jan 7th and am looking for any refinements beforehand. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Editorial Integrity
My sincere edit of wanting "editorial integrity" defined in this article is apparently too much to ask for from. He mentions it's defined at Identifying reliable sources, but I see nothing. Could we have that tag reimplimented or the definition of editorial integrity described? It's pretty wide open for interpretation. It's borderline WP:PEACOCK. By who's measuring stick does an article have editorial integrity, and when does it not? Leitmotiv (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like most any policy or guideline on Wikipedia, there is not a binary, "this is/this isn't" definition. If you take the guideline you mention above as a whole, you will find it explains what makes up editorial integrity quite well. If sources' reliability is disputed, the editor wanting to use them has the option of starting a discussion at WP:RSN. In any case, I cannot see how the addition of a remark on needing a definition into the actual guideline page could ever be useful. John from Idegon (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If a noun such as "editorial integrity" is offered up front, but not defined, and I have to interpret it throughout an entire article, then it is a suspect noun, to say the very least. At the very most, it could be removed for being unclear, but I went for the other option and asked for a specific definition. Why is that too much to ask? Can you define it for me? Leitmotiv (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , best practice when you don't understand a policy or guideline is to enquire at the Help desk or WP:Teahouse, not to make edits to the policy you do not understand. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Editorial integrity" is a key part of how reliable sources are defined, so it should be there. It may not be those exact words, its represented in "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --M asem  (t) 14:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that editorial integrity is too specialized of a metric to worry about in policy. But it nibbles at the edges of a big gap. What we really need is an additional metric. A metric of strength of sourcing is the source's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on small (but important) change to LISTN
At WP:LISTN, the opening sentence currently reads: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables.".

I propose that it be changed to: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." [Changes in bold].

The notability guideline clearly indicates that it exists as a benchmark for the creation of articles, not for the content within them. This is demonstrated in the nutshell: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.", the final paragraph of the lead: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." and also the entire section of WP:NNC.

The existing opening sentence somewhat confuses between inclusion into Wikipedia (introducing a new list) and inclusion within the list itself (introducing an entry within the list). My proposed change eliminates this confusion by expressing the intended meaning that "inclusion" obviously means "creation of" or inclusion into Wikipedia, not inclusion of entries into the list. This is apparent since the following sentence reads "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." and "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...". Thanks in advance for supporting this minor, yet significant change. Huggums537 (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and boldly implement this change (since it is so minor without changing the intended meaning) and invite anyone who doesn't agree with the change to chime in on the discussion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s not quite that simple... many of our existing list articles (entitled “List of X”) have consensus criteria that limit inclusion in the list to items that are notable. You could entitle these: “List of notable X”, but spelling out “notable” is seen as unnecessary.
 * To give an example - List of Freemasons. It would be rediculous to include every single Freemason, ever... There have been multi-millions of men who have been Freemasons through the years... most of them average joes who don’t merit being mentioned in Wikipedia... and we simply can’t list every one. So, we reached a consensus to limit inclusion in that list to the ones who are actually noteworthy (ie they have to have a bio article about them).  That said... this limitation is not really governed by WP:LISTN (at least not directly) ... it is governed by WP:Consensus and practicality. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, list entry inclusion is also specifically governed by WP:LSC (which is linked to at the hatnote of WP:LISTN) just as much as by consensus, DUE or others. Correspondingly, we see the hatnote of WP:LSC links back to WP:LISTN for governing support as well. So, we see the two go hand in hand toward governance of the notability of lists and entries within the lists. Also, see WP:NOTEWORTHY (which ALSO links back to BOTH WP:LISTN AND WP:LSC for information about lists). We must remember that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles (or lists unless otherwise specified by inclusion criteria) as set forth in WP:NOTEWORTHY. A list (and consequently all of it's entries) is considered notable by default (according to WP:LISTN) unless specific inclusion criteria has optionally been set forth for a particular list. Keep in mind that it is well within the guidelines to set forth inclusion criteria for notability, but it's entirely optional since notability of lists and their entries are "presumed" to be notable. In the case of List of Freemasons, it's perfectly reasonable to limit the list to notable entries only per the first bullet point at: WP:CSC (which is part of WP:LSC). However, it should be noted that such inclusion criteria (as exampled by the Freemason list) is supposed to be mentioned in the lede: "...and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." and "Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries." per WP:SALLEAD as well as "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous..." from WP:LSC. Huggums537 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking untrue parts of statements about list entries per this quote: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." at WP:LISTN. Huggums537 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out to Blueboar that saying, "...spelling out “notable” is seen as unnecessary." is not exactly accurate since even List of Freemasons actually DOES spell it out at the end of the very first sentence with "...lists of notable Freemasons." [no emphasis added]. It should also be pointed out that this is seen as necessary and intentionally done in compliance with WP:BOLDTITLE, WP:LSC and WP:SALLEAD (as quoted in my comment above). Huggums537 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the title... that list is, appropriately, a “list of notable Freemasons”... even though the article title omits the word “notable”. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It does depend on the list, eg omitting notable from List of video games notable for negative reception would invite a lot of poor entries. If notable is dropped from a list title but notability (blue-linked) is still used as an inclusion metric, the list lede should be very clear that the list is not exhaustive or some other indicator of what the list inclusion metric is for that list. --M asem (t) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be further pointed out that even List of video games notable for negative reception follows the governance of WP:SALLEAD where it is stated  "...unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." (also quoted above). So, it really does depend on the list and whatever the consensus is of the options that are available within the governance of the guidelines. Many editors incorrectly believe there is a "right" or "wrong" way, when many times, in reality, there could be several ways that are equally "right". Huggums537 (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support change- It seems that the biggest effect of your proposed change will be to discourage the creation of very crufty lists. It won't affect navigational lists, or ones limited by design to their notable members. But it will, hopefully, damp the creation of terrible things like "List of fictional puddles" containing breathless exclamations about every time someone got their boots wet in a movie. I can only say that I approve. Reyk YO! 12:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You could also use the word "merit" to align with the other parts of WP:N. I agree being clearer between "inclusion as a stand-alone list" and "inclusion guides for the contents of the list" is important. --M asem (t) 14:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A simple word search on WP:N reveals "merit" having only 4 results, of which only 3 of those are pertinent to the discussion. However, a search for "creat" (not a typo) yields 22 results with various forms of "creat/e/ed/ing/ion". To be fair, not all 22 results are pertinent to the discussion either, but the majority are. In addition, the word "create" was relevant enough to be so aligned with WP:N that it warranted it's very own mention of the word in the actual section heading of WP:N's WP:PAGEDECIDE (as well as the word "creating" in the first sentence). So, we see that "creation" aligns better with other parts of WP:N than does "merit". Thanks for the suggestion and support though. Huggums537 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support That's reasonable, though I think this does tie into the distinction between the concept and measurement of notability, and the processes that notability becomes involved in (read, the GNG/SNG for creating or meriting an article), but until we can address that, this change to "create" works. --M asem (t) 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, This is courtesy notice that I took the liberty to modify your comment to indicate your support. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the change. It is minor. Folks have brought up other issues which it does not really cover. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. It has been long established that WP:N is for article creation, not for their content. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per arguments already stated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shouldn't the wording be "existence of" rather than "creation of"? We want to apply these guidelines to all lists, not just the newly-created ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This guideline deals almost exclusively with whether an article is suitable enough to warrant being created. In addition, "existence of" might be misguiding since it is already established that notability guidelines DO NOT "apply" to "existing" content within articles/lists. This incidentally means that this particular guideline was never intended for application to "existing" content. So, you can easily see how "existence of" is misleading, and even contradicts the rest of the guideline. Thanks for the good intentions, but it defeats the purpose of the proposal and doesn't really comply with the intended purpose of the guideline. Huggums537 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is meaningless to establish the importance of a list by the notability criteria of GNG. May years ago, when for a while this was actually attempted, it was interpreted as meaning not only that such lists were generally made in reliable sources, but that there were significant discussion ofthe nature ofthe list. This came to a very narrow criterion indeed, and very few lists can meet it. Rather, a list is encyclopedic if other works of reference make similar lists, just as an ordinary topic is notable if other reliable sources include it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that your comments here and on your user page regarding the GNG suggest that maybe you are more opposed to the GNG in general than of my proposed minor change. I also see nothing specifically related to my proposal in your comments. People might view this more as someone venting about the GNG and less about being on the topic of the proposal. I think some of your statements actually support my proposal and I agree with the ones that do support it. Huggums537 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, your ideas are far more advanced than what is appropriate for this simple topic, which amounts to little more than "creation" Vs. "inclusion". Your oppositions may be better served by formally opening your own RfC to express those ideas there as opposed to this informal one here. Huggums537 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, I see that you did in fact take the opportunity to express your ideas in a more advantageous setting. In light of this, I wonder if I could persuade you to change the status of your !vote to a "Comment" or "Neutral" position? Huggums537 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did mean oppose. I oppose this change in particular, even with the existing general view of notability guidelines. It's excessive specificity as regards lists.  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the existing wording, "inclusion" was extremely excessive vagueness regarding lists that leads to unnecessarily excessive confusion in that it has been wrongfully misinterpreted as meaning "adding new entries to the list" when in fact it actually means "adding a new list to Wikipedia". The "excessive specificity" of my proposal was needed to correct the extremely excessive vagueness of the existing wording. Perhaps you would consider this viewpoint and find it worthy of a Neutral change since you can easily see that the "excessiveness" of both versions do kind of "neutralize" each another. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, we find that there could be as many as 20-22 instances of various forms of the word "create" used throughout the project page in a very similar fashion of specificity. So it does become evident that this amount of specificity is actually normal for the page when we view it from a broader perspective outside the narrow scope of my singular edit. To be even more specific, the most relevant example of these variations of the word "create" can be found right within the closing sentence of the very section we are discussing. From WP:LISTN: "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.". [Emphasis added]. We see that with my edit the opening and closing sentence now match in this section (as they match the many other examples throughout the page). This actually does promote conformity and consistency (within this section and throughout the project page) in addition to the benefit that does also avoid the excessive confusion of the old wording. This should be more than enough to convince anyone willing to be just a little bit reasonable. Huggums537 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Another minor (but related) change
Based on the same principals and arguments of my original proposal, I would also like to make the following additional change:
 * WP:GNG Currently reads: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included."
 * I propose: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. [Changes in bold]
 * I'm going to assume this change is uncontroversial and boldly make the change considering the fact that there was nearly unanimous support for the similarly related change. Thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Both have a logical flaw if taken literally, but I think that the actual meaning is presumed.....meeting notability does not always mean it should have an article, there are other criteria.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a confusion between presumed with respect to notability, and the other requirements of WP:NOT. Presumed notability means it's notable un;ess there is evidence otherwise, but there are many other requirements for having an article. Most of the other criteria are unrelated to the issue No, that is not what it means. It means that it is notable, unless there is evidence otherwise.  Quite apart from notability, there's even more important rules to consider.  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both of you. I think it's good we have opened up a dialogue about it in the other section. Huggums537 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)