Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and notability

RfC about the meaning of the word 'multiple'
When policies and essays about notability say multiple sources are required, does the word 'multiple' mean 'more than one' or 'more than two'? Dictionary definitions differ. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

has made a bold edit changing the definition of the term 'multiple' used in the essay:

old text: two is certainly "multiple", but like most bare minimums, rarely enough.

new text: ''by definition "multiple" is "having or involving several parts, elements, or members." and "several" is "more than two but not many"''

Edit summary: Being bold and correcting definition of "multiple"

Discussion that prompted the RfC
My view is that the definition of 'multiple' does not need correcting, because it was not incorrect. Merriam-Webster defines the adjective 'multiple' as follows:
 * "consisting of, including, or involving more than one"

To change the definition of multiple from "more than one" to "more than two" would be very significant in the context of the essay and should be based on wide discussion and consensus rather than the viewpoint of a single editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely invite discussion on the topic. The rationale for my change, as noted in my edit summary, is based on the definition in several dictionaries regarding the word "multiple" and "several":
 * Dictionary.com states "multiple (adj)" is "consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts, elements, relations, etc.; manifold.", which led me to look up "several (determiner & pronoun)" is "being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind".
 * Oxford concurs nearly verbatim: multiple (adj): "Having or involving several parts, elements, or members." and "More than two but not many.".
 * The Cambridge dictionary states multiple (adj) is "consisting of or involving many things or types of things". and that "many" is "a large number (of), or a lot (of)"..
 * Macmillan Dictionary states "multiple" is "involving or consisting of many people, things, or parts", and that "many" is "a large number of people, things, places, etc.". None of those definitions say or imply "multiple" means "two".
 * My position is that the essay was simply incorrect in it's original form given the plethora of definitions that I've cited here and that I've simply corrected it to reflect and clarify the definition of "multiple". Waggie (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So there are multiple definitions of the word multiple! For what its worth, Wiktionary defines it as more than one. How do we go about involving others in this discussion so we can establish consensus? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An RfC would be the appropriate way to draw attention to a talk page discussion like this one. Please see WP:RFC for further information. Waggie (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RfC process started. I will revert the paragraph in the essay to how the article was originally written until consensus is established. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't refactor my talk page comments in future, thank you! Waggie (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm opposed to having a bureaucratic definition. There is a certain amount of judgement that must go into a determination of notability. If the NY Times wrote a significant article on someone, and they were also covered as the topic of an article by the Wall Street Journal, I don't care if there isn't a single additional source, they are notable. If someone got a short bio blurb for being a local business person in 4 local papers, they may not rise to the level of notability. It shouldn't be about counting numbers of sources. Monty  845  23:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A fair point, regarding the audience size of a source, but breadth of the audience is discussed elsewhere in the notability criteria, so in your example of 4 local papers, the local business person wouldn't qualify in any case. The issue with the NYT example is that even if the NYT wrote a massive article on someone, it's still not enough coverage to support an article because it would be too few opinions (at very best it would be BLP1E in any practical case). Even two would be pushing credibility. Perhaps the page should read something vaguely like "The quality of sources is more important that the quantity, however, multiple sources are required to meet notability criteria. As a guideline, a minimum of 3 sources with comprehensive coverage should be provided...". I mean, that's what a lot of WP:GNG boils down to, is whether there will be enough comprehensive and quality sources to summarize for a balanced article or stub. Waggie (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Deprecate "Notability" requirements to keep internet free and open.
Deprecate "Notability" requirements to keep internet free and open. 76.243.123.137 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)