Wikipedia talk:Notability does not degrade over time

Essay or policy?
Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence §  t / e  08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen a few people espousing similar opinions before. It seems like this perspective on things is a good safeguard against the tendency of Wikipedia to accumulate a lot of "modern" articles, simply because more editors are familiar with them. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this was written from my viewpoint of the exact opposite, that "modern" articles are perfectly valid. this was the actual AFD that got me to write this, though I'd been using this argument for some time and was never challenged on it. Ironic that we both saw it from a totally unique avenue! Lawrence  §  t / e  09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mean to denigrate modern articles per se, it's just that we tend to get far more of them than articles about historical subjects, even though there is much more history than modernity! This is just the understandable problem arising from the encyclopaedia being written by modern people, obviously.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   ⊖  09:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy on this matter is given at WP:N. However it's worth mentioning WP:CCC in this context. Taemyr (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not policy, it is guideline. Anyway, the current essay, as proposed errs too far in the direction of crystal aka WP:NOT imho. We don't know, do we? Writing general predicitions about what notability guidance, deletion processes, etc, etc will be in the future is inappropriate, useless, counterproductive,... --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The flipside is what if a topic has ten sources--easily enough for the general notability guideline--but hasn't been written about in 40 years? Lawrence  §  t / e  18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's another one: if after these 40 years a considerable amount of the sources are still available, without major change on Wikipedia's notability guidance, the article can still be kept. What if that isn't the case? How do you verify against sources that no longer exist (except maybe in some exclusive places hardly still resembling "publication")? For WP:V (if it hasn't changed in 40 years, etc) the article should go. Or be merged if there's still one or two sources left. And no, it's too speculative to assume *which* sources would still exist in 40 years and which won't, that's all crystal ball work: we don't know. really. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's give an example: I wrote the Wikifonia article. Really, I have no clue if in 40 years this would still be anything of note. And I don't care. I'm proud of the article as is, and it is OK notability-wise, but really, if in 40 years that organisation no longer exists, why should anyone still care to keep that article vandalism-free (for example, that is: if in 40 years vandalism is still possible, and still seen as rejectable)... --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's problematic. Once a source is published, it's there and exists. For example, a newpaper report about Subject X is a valid source. Lets say it was published in paper by the Somewhere Times in January 2001. They put it online as well, but took it offline on January 2006. If someone wanted to, they could certainly use it as a source. I was just recently using a source that published originally in Pravda in the 1930s. It's hardly easy to get such things--I lucked out and found it reprinted in a book via Google Books. I could have gotten it at the local library on some some sort of interloan, or by mailing a major library in New York or London perhaps with some luck--but that doesn't make it less a valid source because it's not easy to get or still in publication. Once something is "out" there, it's out there forever. In regards to Wikifonia, it's sources 40 years from now are just as valid and fine. If WP is still here then, and the notability standards at that time agree that Wikifonia is notable, even if there is from today never another word uttered about them: they should stay.
 * Their notability has not reduced. That's my point. Once you get notability, it doesn't go away, ever. It might not be current, or in the news, or whatever, but its there. See my new section below as well about monks. Lawrence  §  t / e  22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "Once a source is published, it's there and exists" - really, you don't know how long it will exist.
 * Examples:
 * In the 18th century a volume was published with cantatas from famous composers of the day (Bach, Telemann,...). Early in the 19th century it seem to have nearly completely disappeared. Here's what's in Wikipedia about that volume: List of compositions by J.S. Bach printed during his lifetime. Does that make the "disappeared" cantatas less notable? In a general sense, probably no. But since there's nothing "verifiable" left (these other cantatas don't exist any more), Wikipedia notability is near to zero, and too low to make separate articles about them.
 * Somewhat less than a century ago a play Ruffian toujours, truand jamais was staged in Paris. Doubtlessly it received some press. Maybe some of that press can still be tracked. The play itself however went lost. Some unusual music was played at its premiere. The music survived, and has a Wikipedia article (Furniture music). The play will probably not have a separate article. It does not exist any more. Even if it was found back, it would probably still be non-notable and not ever get a separate article. It's mentioned in its author's article though Max Jacob. A similar 19th century story can be told about Helmina von Chézy's Rosamunde, Fürstin von Zypern.
 * VRT, public broadcaster in Belgium, has a cool news website (with a section in English). I wrote quite some Wikipedia text using its pages as reference. Just a few weeks ago they changed the website's layout, and its name from http://www.vrtnieuws.net to http://www.deredactie.be - none of old content is still available, making quite some of the references of for instance the Christine Van den Wyngaert article moot. Since for that same article also the references to the Belgian government website went dead (no clue why), presently about half of the references of that page are "fake". Surely, it would still be possible to recover other links and references for its content, but in 40 year? no idea. And frankly, I don't care. If by then there's nothing any more why she should deserve a separate encyclopedia article (determined by standards that we don't know yet), so what?
 * Suppose that in 30 years the Somewhere Times is acquired by one of its major competitors. The newspapers are joined, and 5 years later the board of directors of the new newpaper decides that the archives of the former competitor are not worth to be kept on-line, favoring the on-line webarchive of the newpaper that performed the acquisition. Bye-bye accessibility.
 * And no, you really don't know whether the web will continue to be such wonderful all-remembering machine. You're just guessing/speculating. Crystal ball. We don't allow it on encyclopedia pages, even less should we base essays/guidelines/policies on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It all comes back to things like Citing_sources though, in that we have have official steps on dealing with "dead" link sources. We can also at any time use sources that aren't online--I can go to the library, go to the Old Books section that you often aren't allowed to take books out of, and only examine, perhaps under supervision. A gentleman I know went to Yale University and told me about the rare book library there, for example. They have rare volumes that you can't get easily (or at all) and that aren't online. They would be fine sources, though. I'm sure older schools in England or the British museums or libraries have even older volumes that would be fine sources, on the same note. The point is, if someone were to get the materials, such as newspaper volumes from England circa 1700, or where and whenever, you can make perfectly valid articles about "dead" topics from "dead" sources that were notable, and still are from that perspective. That's my ultimate point: if a topic achieved notability in AD Whatever, by our internal standards (subject of multiple non-trivial sources) and would be valid to include, it's absurd to say a topic that met our notability standards in AD 2006 may not be notable as well in 2008, because no one talks about it still. Lawrence  §  t / e  23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, exactly those old barely accessible books etc. (according to current Wikipedia guidance) exactly have *stopped* to contribute to a topic's notability, again, in the current approach of Wikipedian notability guidance. If content is only available in places where no usual starveling would easily go... then its not notable probably, while nobody bothered to make a copy of it, to (re-)publish it, to write an article about it or whatever. If you think that content notable nonetheless, then go to that archive, and publish something about it. But don't use Wikipedia for that, it's OR even if the source was once generally available, but is no longer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How on Earth would it be original research if I went to say London, went into an old museum or library, got my hands on rare out of print sources, and generated a Wikipedia article on a clearly defined subject using nothing but archaic or not-generally available sources?
 * Here is a fantastic example: Abba Mari. Clearly notable. All the sources were authored by people who died before the year 1895. The article incorporate material from the Jewish Encylopedia 1906 and the Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 edition. However! If you had the original source material (penned by notable authors no less) the two encyclopedias used, you could easily write this article. Would this be an example of an article that would be scrubbed by your standards? If this didn't exist, and I wrote it from scratch tomorrow, would this be OR if I had to physically go and track down the source volumes? Lawrence  §  t / e  23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make the difference between *notability* which can only be established by *accessible sources* (Jewish Encylopedia 1906 and the Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 belong in this category), and, on the other hand, rare sources containing content that is *accessible nowhere else*. If the *notability* of a topic is established (again, which can not be done without broadly accessible sources, and again, under *current* Wikipedia guidance), then of course some rare sources (e.g. primary sources) can be used to further complete an article. But the article can't start if those broadly accessible sources on that topic don't exist, nor can it be *maintained* (again, under current Wikipedia guidance) if those broadly accessible sources cease to exist. If someone closes the money tap on the Wikifonia project, that could (or *could not* I don't know) happen in the next decades. I really don't know, and I really consider this as an issue not to worry about.
 * Something else, and that was what I was wondering about all throughout this discussion, a current "huge" political controversy, would be notable, according to what you say here. Lots of press coverage, even a poll by CNN conducted only on that issue. Yet it is argued that not only a separate article on this political issue would be unthinkable, but that it even can't be mentioned as a notable view in the lead section of the article that currently contains the content on that political controversy. Part of the argumentation is that that political issue will be not noteworthy any more after the next US presidential election. You've guessed what I'm speaking about, I suppose. Now, how would you handle that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Well, this outcome of this dicussion wasn't telegraphed ahead of time...OK, I'll play. First on the waterboarding: I'm now going to be hounded on other parts of the project over this? Fine. You want to do a fork of the article to cover the domestic US controversy, go right ahead. I've never overtly objected to that, but what I said once was that I object to a POV fork. That will get AFD'd if not be me than by ten other people. But a neutral article discussing the controversy with hard respect and obeying for WP:WEIGHT could be acceptable. But that is not for discussing here. Discuss it in the appropriate places, not here.
 * I wouldn't propose it for a separate article either, for the POV forking, I just mentioned it as rhetorical question type of "unthinkable". But I'm serious about the lead section notification (which excludes the unmitigated "very-large-majority" based single view definition), as you know. But I'm happy if this our discussion here set you to thinking somehow. As you know (or will know now) you're still my best bet to get that swamp of a case somewhere on a track again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I reject the notion we can't make an article wholly out of "hard to find" sources. Show me what policy supports this (exact link to the passage, please). Lawrence §  t / e  00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not policy (although somewhat corrolary of WP:V and WP:NOR), that's why I said "guidance". It's in WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [...] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. [...]" (emphasis shifted, see the lead paragraph and 3rd bullet of Notability for original emphasis, and links to WP:V, and also to WP:NOR in the second bullet). (PS, just noted a grammatical error in that last sentence, shall go and correct it) --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephen Glass says that some sources can degrade over time -- and 10 articles would be reduced to 9. (I kid, this sounds fine to me.) Dookama (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The musical examples mentioned above are all cases where the subject in question was discussed in a useful way by reliable sources which can still be located. That the original work has disappeared does not make it any less notable, any more than the Soviet Union has disappeared also. The problem with web links can be solved very easily by the use of the public domain solutions for archiving them, and we should be doing this as a matter of course. DGG (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of "accessibility" obliquely referred to above, was addressed some time ago, and we had composed the end-result of that discussion here. Essentially we allow any library to be an accessible repository, the work does not need to be in a majority of libraries. Just any. But it still has to be published, not raw manuscripts for example. Wjhonson (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Published does not address accessibility ("Below is presented a definition of "published" for wikipedians, separate from the idea of "accessible" and (...) which are covered elsewhere." - bolding added) - as a consequence, that page says nothing about "notability" in the WP:N sense (i.e. in the meaning of "deserving a separate article in Wikipedia").
 * I think my views have changed pretty little since the Kittie May Ellis discussion here, that is: History of Western Washington, 1889, although "existing", proves pretty nothing on that person's notability (in a Wikipedia sense), for lack of general accessibility. Consequently, and primarily for such reasons her article was deleted and did not uphold in a second (or was it 3rd?) DRV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you silly goose. You should bring up something I did in 1978, now that was a real doozy. The page WP:Published had an old typo on it that was never fixed.  I've fixed it now.  If you read past the intro you would have seen that the page does indeed address accessible with its own sub-section. Wjhonson (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked the entire discussion about the Ellis article. It wasnt about the books being accessible. They were privately printed books, and the question was whether they could even be proven to exist, and it became clear it the discussion that the ed. involved had not actually seen them and therefore there was no way to know to what extent they actually covered the subject in a significant way. It is certainly appropriate for a rarely held printed source to ask for specific information, at the very least pages covered. DGG (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

? notability literally cannot reduce on it's own over time, ever. ?
Notability (wikipedia-notability), as measured from time to time, may decrease if sources initially thought to demonstrate notability are later determined to no longer do so, on the basis that they are not as independent as initially thought. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean notability changes, only that we were wrong about it. –Pomte 11:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have some notable hoaxes that ended up being thoroughly debunked and discredited. The notability isn't in the truth of the hoax, but in the reaction and effect that that hoax had. A media sensation might end up being nothing at all, but the fact that it caused a media sensation would be sufficient for notability, and that notability is what would remain over time. I agree, though, that some sources might degrade over time (or be lost or inaccessable/out of print, etc.), but the notability that they document wouldn't be. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yokohama Curry Museum
I recently came across this - something of a test case perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you to for creating this essay. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthiness vs Noteworthiness
One aspect that would be nice to have covered in this is that there is a difference between a topic that is in the news "today", and a topic that has notability, typically applying to topics on events or to living persons. The former may develop into the latter exactly as the essay describes, but there are also many newsworthy items that never become notable. For example Black Monday (1987) was both newsworthy and later noteworthy, but what happened to the stock market last week was simply a blip (at least, presently simply a blip :-) that got newscoverage but does not merit it's own topic. --M ASEM 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why Wikinews was created. There is a difference between something being newsworthy and something being encyclopedic.  There is a difference between what should be included in a newspaper/newsmedia (such as Wikinews) and what should be included in an encyclopedia.  For an encyclopedia there has to be some sort of lasting significance to the event... something more than just "it was talked about in all the papers and blogs"   The problem comes in knowing when an event crosses the line between newsworthyness and encyclopedic notability.  Some "news" events are obviously encyclopedic as soon as they happen (a major terrorist attack, the assassination of a world leader, etc.)... others are not (yet another school shooting, the anouncement of a surprising scientific discovery).  It may take half a year or even longer to know if the event actually is encyclopedic... to know if it has any lasting significance and what that significance is (did the school shooting lead to new laws or initiatives?... is the scientific discovery accepted by the mainstream or is it considered pseudo-scientific crap?, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Order of the Belgian Order - recentism
Let's say I learned about an order of monastics from Belgium called The Order of the Belgian Order that vanished from history in the 1300s one day while wandering the library. I see that they're mentioned in 5-6 old news records from the day, a column here, a few passages there. 4-5 extra sources above and beyond the articles themselves, that they cite to. The "newest" source lets say was published in 1808 and I luckily found them on microfiche. Despite all my searching, I can never find another newer word about the The Order of the Belgian Order having been written. Literally, no media or scholars have written on them in 200 years. But I have 10+ sources on these monks. I write the article, and post it. Coincidentally, all the "press" on the monks was from June 1808. Something caught the interest of the newspapers of the day in London, Brussels, and Paris, and they all ran with it. Are they notable today? No one has really cared about them in 200+ years or more.

What happens here? The news media of the day went nutty about these monks and published a bunch of press in a short burst in 1808; then they faded from ongoing public interest. How is this different from accusations of modern WP "NOTNEWS" and recentism? Lawrence §  t / e  22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Libraries are not ususally dangerous places... people don't often vanish into L-Space while wandering in one. (Although, I knew this guy who's cousin's college roommate got lost in one... last seen wandering in the 900s - History and Geography). An entire body of monks vanishing in one would certainly be notable! :)
 * OK, seriously... Yes, such an Order probably is notable under wikipedia standards, even though all the sources are old. It really depends on what the sources have to say about them.  From your hypothetical, something caught the eye of the press back in 1808... and that it did so internationally tells me that that "something" is probably fairly notable.  After all, if a small group of monks living quietly in Brugge in the 1300s did something that is still being talked about in the 1800s, what they did is probably fairly significant. Perhaps they had the perfect beer recipe? Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Window of Culture
In classes I teach, I sometimes talk to students about the idea of a person's "window of culture". I'm not sure if I coined the phrase or not, but I find it very useful.

Each of us recognizes as significant things in our own culture. Except for the extraordinary we seldom hear much about things outside of our window of culture. Our personal windows of culture are established by two factors, the date and location of our birth. I encouraged students to study history, to interact with foreign students, and to travel in order to expand their window of culture.

I normally digressed into this discussion after saying something like "Hey, you... almost a doctor." This is a phrase used by Bill Cosby on a comedy album he recorded in the early 1960s, and frequently repeated back then by people trying to be humorous. People in their late forties or older might recognize it, but younger people look at you like you're from another planet if you say it. For the sake of context, in the story it was said by Bill as a child to a hospital orderly (do they still call them orderlies?).

I have been working on railroad history here on Wikipedia. I have no illusions that the average high school or college student today would know the 20th Century Limited from the Texas Special. But I want to see this history preserved and presented in digital form to the world... for the few who will care. And I know this is where they come to find information. Who knows... small children have become fascinated by trains largely due to Thomas the Tank Engine; maybe this youngest generation will find the information useful. The last thing I'd want to see is articles about Thomas yanked from Wikipedia. What I would like to see is links on the Thomas pages to information about real trains. Hmmm... I think I'll go modify some pages. Lownen (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's wrong
Copied and pasted from VP:

I think the essay is wrong because of a couple of things:


 * "...increase or remain steady as time goes by." I think you're intending to discuss only the passage of time related to the /subject/.  But /subject/ is not an island to itself.  As time goes by, if the field becomes flooded with fifty thousand similar versions of /subject/, it probably reduces the notability of /subject/.  Let's say someone builds the first duck blind in Cambodia.  Is it notable?  Let's say, yes, for its historical import.  Is the second one notable?  Let's say, yes again, because, hey, it's the second, and thus demonstrates the viability (and maybe notability) of the first.  Is the third?  Fourth?  Fifth?  As we get toward the fifty thousandth, it's hard to argue that the 99th is still notable.  The notability of the 99th did not "...increase or remain steady as time goes by."


 * I think you are probably aiming this essay at notability with regards to the existence of an article. I don't think it applies to the existence of facts in an article about a rather current event.  Facts that are notable will get drowned out over time by facts that are more notable as we get the wider view of the event.  They have indeed become less notable as time passed by - within the scope of the article, that is.  Tempshill (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excelente
This essay is great and has implications far beyond articles with questionable notability. Any perceived degradation in notability of an article is actually a reflection on other articles at Wikipedia. Either current notability standards are too lax or other articles are newsworthy but not noteworthy or there is geobias or recentism at work. —  AjaxSmack   23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it just me who sees the irony in all of this? We agree that recentism is bad, but then some go on to be recentist regarding what sources are allowed. It is fairly well known that as time passes from an event, the sources covering that event will reduce in quality and accuracy, and typically cover the event with respect to their time's views and opinions. Furthermore, what past events a given era considers significant is also highly culturally influenced. I think it would be true to say that there are double standards at work, that recent events are held to a much lower level of notability than older events. This is nothing unusual, of course, and is exactly what you would expect. This is compounded further by the effects of modern society and culture allowing us more rapid access to modern sources. The ideas put forth by some, that harder to access but still publicly accessible sources are not usable, is clearly absurd. The question that needs addressing is if wikipedia is a modern encyclopaedia, covering all knowledge of merit to our modern culture, or if wikipedia is in fact an attempt at a more general encyclopaedia, allowing exploration of knowledge, discovery and history without the judgement of our modern opinions and biases. LinaMishima (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobility is not verifiability
I would agree with the essay premise that if there are sources here today, then those sources will not degrade over time. But notability is a different matter and rests on the amount of interest people have shown in a topic. Interest may grow or decline over time. The Recentism essay addresses that issue quite comprehensively. I feel the name of this essay is not helpful, and the link from the Recentism essay is probably inappropriate.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 11:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanence of sources

 * Sources, once they exist, do not simply go away even if they become old, generally forgotten, superseded, or hard to find.

I disagree with this, in theory. In practice, sources don't generally vanish completely, but in theory, the can. If a source can no longer be found, and the notability of the subject cannot be confirmed, the info in question should be deleted. There are many people who were notable in centuries past, who can no longer notable, because no record exists of them, or maybe only a bare mention of their names. If sources never disappeared, we'd still know about them. The second paragraph is not strictly correct. -Freekee (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And there is a potential for abuse here - if someone wants to make bad faith edits, they can claim a link they inserted used to exist and supports something they inserted in an article, or equally they could make up a quote and pretend it is from an offline source that is very hard for anyone to verify whether it is true or not. Obviously such sources are fine when they otherwise fit in with other sources or expand on it in a non-controversial way, but it seems like you would have to add something similar to the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and that extraordinary claims in an article should be relatively easily verifiable for most users (not necessarily online only, but certainly not "you will have to fly half way around the world to the Bodleian to read it in person"). --81.149.74.231 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)