Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

The "one of the more contentious issues" deletion

Radiant, at this diff [1] you removed the sentence "The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" with the explanation in Edit Summary, "incorrect statement (see AFD logs)". I have to challenge this deletion, on the basis that not only does the fact of some usage of NN in AfD, or the fact that said usage has increased, not say anything at all about whether said usage is contentious or not, it is strongly arguable (and has been argued here and not that I've seen refuted — even unsuccessfully, simply not at all) that it is the very fact of the rise of use and alleged abuse of NN in AfD that makes "the use of notability in the deletion process one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" in the first place. Your edit's rationale is totally tautological. In the interest of cooling off I've not reverted it. But please. This edit's rationale to date defies logic. I'm not sure why your edits always appear to be in the direction of removing any hint from this page that WP:N is anything but the most consensus-agreed and respected guideline on the whole system, but it isn't. That it isn't is so starkly clear it's almost painful; it's the very reason that I and various less patient editors have been engaging in these debates, not one of which is resolved yet. Can't you see that WP:AGF credulity is being stretched to the breaking point here? You appear to be (note: expression of perception of the results of actions, not an accusation of demonstrable intent or motives) defending your particular take on notabilty at all costs and without any yielding? All I'm doing by contrast is raising issues, shared by many others, and expecting them to be addressed. I'm just asking you to thoroughly discuss, not give up. If you take an hour break and read my history on this page (and its archive) over the last week or two, you'll see that my position has very significantly moderated, in my places, based on compromise and consensus-building; why hasn't yours? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? You and TD claim that using notability in deletion discussions is controversial. However, analysis of those deletion discussions shows that claim to be incorrect. For instance, yesterday's debates show about 438 instances of the term "notability" or "notable" (not counting "nn" or the multitude of links to WP:BIO et al). Last time we did statistics on the topic, over two-thirds of the debates were about the topic. There is the occasional controversy about whether a particular article is or is not notable, but there is no controversy about deleting those articles lacking notability. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure there is, and has been for years. Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposal, Wikipedia talk:Notability_proposal, Wikipedia talk:Non-notability, Wikipedia talk:Importance, Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, as well as Village Pump present and past Village Pump discussions, etc., etc., etc. No one here that I've seen has said that use of "NN" causes much controversy in AfD commentary (though it is not without its detractors even in there), because AfD is not the place to debate policymatters in general, it's the place to debate the fate of the particular articles under discussion. Please stop miscasting mine and others' arguments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Using "nn" in AFD commentary causes no controversy because deleting articles on grounds of notability is not controversial. That's all there is to it. Trying to get an article related to, say, Islam and Judaism deleted will cause a lot of controversy on AFD itself. "Policy matters" are generally created by precedent, and that is why we have a guideline that says we can delete non-notable articles, and not a guideline that says we can delete religion-related articles. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting articles on grounds of notability is quite controversial, which is why there is so much discussion on this page. — Reinyday, 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative language

On a hopefully less contentious side-topic, I would suggest that the language of the passage, while arguably "true" in the broad interpretation, isn't particularly useful to anyone. I would say it should read, perhaps, "The use of Wikipedia:Notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia (and a minority still dispute the use of any notability criteria in AfD despite Wikipedia:Deletion policy to the contrary), as of this writing." Or something to that effect - i.e., separate people with concerns about WP:N's scope, etc., from super-extremists on the more general notability issue. That is, the original sentence isn't "incorrect", but it can be misinterpreted in ways that are not favorable to WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While it seems to be true for every policy and guideline that a minority disputes it, I fail to see the point of writing that down on the policy and guideline pages themselves. Indeed, WP:CIV doesn't state that in spite of the policy, some people take pride in their incivility; WP:NPOV doesn't state that there have been several coordinated efforts to deprecate it; and neither does WP:BLOCK say that some blocked people have gone so far as to try to get the blocking admin arrested by police. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Specious apples-and-oranges examples; WP:CIV and WP:BLOCK have not been the subject years of raging debate that hasn't substantively changed in three years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, blocking people is often controversial and subject to raging debate on e.g. WP:ANI. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple non-trivial sources?

I'm not sure that we really want to require this - after all, we presumably don't mean secondary reporting of a primary source (or maybe we do, but that would be kind of strange). What about astronomical discoveries that have only one primary source, and then secondary discussion in papers that reference the first? Surely one credible source is enough if that source is above suspicion? Referencing things that reference the first one adds little, it's just a game of Chinese Whispers. Trollderella 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Touche!Kmarinas86 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

? Trollderella 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the second source was to maintain some semblance of WP:NPOV. ColourBurst 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the functions of "multiple" is multiple secondary sources, which which evaluate the authority of the primary source for us. This is more of an issue under "independent". Clearly, "independent" includes being independent of the subject, but for the highest reliability we would indeed want independent secondary sources looking at independent primary sources. However, for topics that are truly important historically or if the primary source is of the highest reliability, the independence that is for measuring reliablity becomes less important. (Also note that for an astronomical discovery, there will be future discoveries to corroborate it; so, while it might currently be of merely good reliability, there is a high level of certainty that it will soon be of very high reliability.) —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that multiple goes to show that something has a lasting or wide-spread notability. Thus, a subject that gets a single, though lengthy, treatment in ONE source may have only a fleeting notability. The fact that a subject is seperately covered in different sources shows a bredth of interest, while the fact that something is covered multiple times by even the same source shows that it has a longer-term importance. If an event if picked up by only one newspaper and covered only one-time, even if extensive coverage for that one event, it may not be notable enough. Also, the multiple/independant criteria ensures that the facts can be verified better. A fact that appears independantly in two or more sources, that did NOT use each other as sources is more likely to be "true". --Jayron 32 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong - see below. Trollderella 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is true of both multiplicity and independence, and both add reliability. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that the "multiple" element, while it perhaps should be applied with some flexibility, should be kept. To restate Esperanza32's argument, we do not want to be giving undue attention to minor 15-minute local celebrities on Wikipedia. But if something is covered again and again and in multiple independent sources, then it is definitely something notable and worth drafting an article on (plus there will be lots of sources to cite to as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). --Coolcaesar 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any discovery with only a single source writing about it is going to be of dubious notability. If your astronomical discovery is only reported in a single paper, you might as well merge it with a larger topic where the paper will add data, since it isn't likely to stand on its own. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you think we should delete articles like Wow! signal (and many others like it)? Only one source, from one researcher (other papers comment on it) and little chance of ever adding more data. I'm a little hesitant even to bring articles like this to attention, in case things have got so bad that you do. Trollderella 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously more than one source has written about the discovery; there are six different references cited, plus inline mention of an X-files episode. If he had written up a report on a signal and no one else cared, citing that report alone would be an example of only one source, and probably be best off merged into a larger SETI article. The data that we add need not be direct observations on the event itself, since we strive to provide context with things like the popular response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So it is the Chinese whispering that's important to you? Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't straw man me. The other sources document other facts. If there was just the one fact, we'd have "there was an astronomical observation. He wrote a paper about it. These were the specifics." The other coverage allows for "There was an observation. It was a BIG DEAL. People are still trying to figure it out. By the way, these are the specifics of the event." Notice that not all the information is even things that would be included in the primary source. You can't establish importance of a primary source with the source itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Change it back?

What would happen if I changed the "guideline" tag back to a proposal since this is so disputed? If it sticks, could this prove a lack of consensus? 70.101.146.27 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. This guideline exists and is used all the time, thus is not really under "proposal" as the concept of notability has anchieved consenus, and continues to enjoy consensus. That the minute details of the guideline continue to be debated and updated does not make it a "proposal". It makes it exactly like every other established wikipedia policy and guideline. --Jayron 32 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea - the 'guideline' status implies a legitimacy of process that this simply does not have. It's dressing this up in consensus, as if that makes it so. Trollderella 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur on "bad idea" (and only that phrase), for completely different reasons. If the status of this document changes, it should be changed to (not just augmented by, as it presently is) the "Disputed" template. If in a few months if it gets even more disputed, it should be marked "Rejected", or I don't see any particular reason that is proponents couldn't "demote" <HUMOR ALERT! I got castigated for using this word a few days ago> it back to Proposal or even Essay, to avoid a Rejected label. I don't see that happening. I personally feel that the "Disputed Guideline" status is sufficient enough to warn people from relying upon WP:N as consensus/authoritative until such time as the disputes are resolved, and to attract them, albeit slowly, into the consensus debate. I think we should all try to remember that we're here for a consensus, not engage in Usenet-style fighting for its' own sake. Heck, if the ueber-inclusionists actually won the debate in the long term, WP:N should still exist, as a page explaining why "Notability" isn't a valid deletion criterion. Not going to happen, but the point is, this isn't about "deleting" WP:N, as a post below seems to suggest, it's about coming to consensus about what it should say, and more importantly what it should mean (and why, in what contexts, to what extent, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that this page should still exist, but just be different, contrary to some statements you made aerlier that you'd like to see this thing gone? (Did you make any such statements? I can't quite remember... this thing is getting so involved! I think I'm going to quit this discussion soon...) 74.38.34.192 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I reserve the right to change my mind. See the thread-mode disclaimer on my talk page. I've actually been saying WP:N should exist and serve somewhat different purposes for several weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be two people who simply have contrarian, unmoveable views about notability, and there is nothing that can be done about that. They are not able to change the deletion process, and without this guideline it is often difficult to explain to people why their articles are deleted—and they are deleted for notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They are deleted because of systematic bias, dressed up as 'notability'. More rulecruft is not required. Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's unadulterated balderadash, Centrx. By my count, even the issues raised on this current talk page as of the date of my timestamp [make that -1 hour; someone did an archival refactoring before I could save this, resulting in an edit conflict] not counting material that was very shunted off into archive pages, sometimes while the debates were still in-progress — a move I may still revert — demonstrate a majority of editors on this page having issues with WP:N and its purpose, effect, meaning, scope and existence (i.e., not its niggling particulars, like this word or that). I started counting and got bored less than 1/3 through the page, and came up with 7 people with unaddressed concerns about WP:N, and the same 3 WP:N supporters (Centrx, Radiant and an IP). But, sure, WP:VOTE comes to bear; fine by me. Ignoring your specious headcount, let's turn to the substance of the arguments. Those with unresolved concerns about WP:N who have spoken up here don't just outnumber WP:N's proponents, they are out-debating them, by a long, long way. WP:N proponents issues' get addressed logically (for the most part; I definitely concede there are some exceptions here and there, but which have already been dealt with) and often refuted completely without rebuttal, while WP:N opponents and questioners get their issues largely ignored, or at best replied to by the proponents with highly fallacious and only partial responses, which ignore most of the issues they raise. This pattern is getting very, very predictable. PS: I really hope you are not thinking of me when you write "unmoveable views"; if you even skim the last month's worth of debate about this proposal you'll see that my views have in fact shifted, quite a bit, and entirely in your favor; it's unwise to smite a potential ally just because they didn't start out as one. As for "contrarian", look in the mirror; by my anecdotal count, the overwhelming majority of commentors here lately have been con not pro. (Which lest I be tarred with the feathers of the guilt by association fallacy here yet again does not mean I agree with all of their points.) And contrarian can be interpreted more than one way; WP:N as it stands is contrary to both WP:V and WP:DEL, a contention I have not seen successfully controverted, only handwaved at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, if Radiant and others were correct in marking WP:NNOT as "rejected by the community" it stands to reason that this article should be similarly marked - as it has the same symptom: not having a supporting consensus. Fresheneesz 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in line with current practice; WP:NNOT was an attempt to completely reverse practice. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Fresheneesz has shown by his comments that he fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice". (Radiant) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Even *if* I "just don't understand wikipedia", its obvious that there is a large number of people who dispute notability critera (and has been for years). If I were talking to anyone else, i'd say this is simply an essay (and it was simply an essay a couple months back). But since i'm talking to Radiant and Centrx, I think they're holding a double standard - kill the proposal NNOT when it had no consensus, but make Notability a guideline when it's been disputed for years. Now, maybe I just can't comprehend the intricacies of wikipedia policy - but it looks to me that some people around here just won't own up to the fact that *this* page does not have community consensus. Fresheneesz 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the current practice is (and has been for long before WP:N was outright edit-warred into being labelled a Guideline instead of a Proposal), that WP:DEL references as deletion-actionable those topical/typical notability Guidelines that have achieved actual consensus enough to be recognized by WP:DEL. So, yes, Fresheneesz isn't on the mark here. But my compromise of simply adding a "Disputed" template to this projectpage instead of replacing the Guideline one with it was really more generous than WP:N deserved. I'm actually still OK with it being this way for now, but I'm very disappointed at the lack of progress in the last few weeks. Not ONE issue raised by anyone with concerns about this proposal has been addressed by its proponents such that consensus has been reached even on that issue alone, much less on the overarching issues with regard to WP:N. If WP:N proponents would simply acknowledge that Wikipedia already has a consensus, Policy-backed, notability guidline creation process that works and has worked for quite some time, and write WP:N to support that process instead of supplant it (i.e. WP:N as currently written is not in line with current practice, but could be made so), I think that the entire debate would simply go away. Consensus can be achieved, but only if both sides are willing to let it happen. There are entrenched parties here, so entrenched that they seem unable to yield on a single point, no matter how insignificant. On both sides. I believe that the debate is not progressing, one inch, toward resolution because of their unwillingness to address the other side's concerns (and often unwillingness to even recognize that they exist), and come to a compromise that helps build consensus so we can all go do something else more productive. A (not this) WP:N could be a really valuable tool in standardizing and spawning WP:DEL-recognized notability criteria, but instead it is presently just this "thing" out here causing a lot of strife and confusion because it conflicts with the WP:DEL process and with the language of WP:V. Just fix it" and let's move on. Heck, I'd just do it myself at this point, but every change I attempt to make to the page is almost instantly reverted with no or insufficient justification. If I get some indication that I won't be edit-warred with, I might be willing to try it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's all very well to assume bad faith and jump to conclusions of ownership, but I note that since you outright edit-warred this page into being labelled "disputed", you have made precisely one edit to the text of the page that wasn't a revert. That edit was adding a bunch of links to outdated pages that hardly seem relevant, and was discussed somewhere else on this page. All the issues you have pointed out on this talk page have been addressed and responded to, and I should note that most of those issues amount to incorrect assumptions (e.g. that guidelines may not be subjective), spurious logic (e.g. appeal to authority) or mere handwaving (e.g. the unsourced assertion that this page has resulted in AFD becoming a cesspool). (Radiant) 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You ignore all those people that agree with that "spurious logic". You're still not a consensus of one Radiant. Fresheneesz 09:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. (Radiant) 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the personal attack? I just see him addressing you by name and making a point about consensus level. <fzzt spark pop> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check that arbcom case and read the parts on "Fresheneesz edits policy disruptively" and "Fresheneesz is uncivil", and the evidence for "Fresheneesz engaged in harassment". He appears to be going back to his old tactic of badmouthing people who disagree with him, e.g. here. (Radiant) 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant views any good argument against him as a personal attack or assumption of bad faith. He's also using completely irrelevant attack against me - any arbitration is irrelevant to whether or not my above comment was a personal attack (which it isn't, obviously). Fresheneesz 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't have time right now to address all of this, but I do have a few responses: Read WP:OWN more closely; not all cases of WP:OWNership are exercises in bad faith action, some of them are just mistakes or forest-for-the-trees issues, so referencing WP:OWN is not categorically a failure to assume good faith. Whether I've edited the main text of the project page (and I've already explicitly stated why I didn't) is of no relevance as to whether this guideline is disputed. For the record I've concentrated on trying to get all sides heard, including the locally unpopular ones that are finally coming back out of the woodwork now that they think they might actually be addressed, so that reaching consensus is actually feasible in the first place. The fact that I'm talking more and more about consensus now instead of dispute is not a coincidence. I have plenty of WP policy/guideline material to back that approach, instead of barging in and changing everthing to my own personal ideal WP:N (and I do have one, the general shape of which I've already described, several times), or marking it just an Essay, or whatever. And I've lately been expressing quite a bit of willingness to moderate my stance. As for the rest, the really short version is I don't believe that the bulk of the issues I've raised have been addressed, but because I'm behind on responding to the main multi-part topic about them, I can't really deal with that in this post. I don't know what app. to auth. you refer to. I remember asking whether proponents of WP:N thought it problematic that Jimbo's (last known?) sentiment on the topic was negative and that WP Policy says his word can be binding. I seem to recall finding the answer to that question satisfactory, actually, though I may not have written so here yet. And, I simply don't agree with you that the addition of the historical material to the "See also" section was irrelevant. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Heck, I even supported Centrx's reasoning for the deletion of one of those "See also" things. See my last comment under the self-revert heading. Not all of this is entirely fresh in my mind; I've been working on actual articles, especially Albinism, and on non-WP things, for a while. PS: I am I to take away from your message, in which you recycle most of the logic terminology I've used back at me, that you find the use of such terminology offensive or uncivil in some way? If that's the case, it wasn't my intent. If it's just irony, good show. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this misnamed "guideline" being correctly called a proposal John Dalton 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building attempt

Simple questions to attempt to return the discussion to reaching consensus:

Is verifiability enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

I say no. Many things are verifiable but not enough for a minimally encyclopedic article to be created. --Jayron 32 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several policies that conflict with this statement (not to mention multiple guidelines and strong precedent), so the answer is a firm no. Also, this is not something we can decide on this page anyway; people who think the answer should be "yes" should go to those policy pages and propose to amend or deprecate them. (Radiant) 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully there are already several other policies. Those are enough. No more rulecruft is needed. Trollderella 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I say no. Verifiability is enough reason to keep a fact, if there's an appropriate article to put it in, but WP:V does not address any threshhold for having an article on a topic. Facts are verifiable, and verifiable facts are collected into articles on notable topics. The policy addressing what makes an "encyclopedia article" is WP:NOT. That policy is too abstract to be useful without some kind of unpacking and application-oriented text, which is precisely what the PNC is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The answer is self-evidently "no", but the question is leading. We already KNOW it isn't enough, because we have the WP:NPOV, etc. The complete question is "Are existing policies and guidelines, apart from WP:N, enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?" That appears to be Trollderella's main point, and one I raised myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. There's a difference between "Does it exist?" and "Can I verify that fact in the source?" If it can be verified, having an aritcle on it won't make Wikipedia explode. -- Chris is me 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There are reasons to do things besides preventing explosions, of course. There's lots of things wouldn't make Wikipedia explode, yet we don't do 'em. Throwing out any particular clause of WP:NOT wouldn't "make Wikipedia explode", but it would make it into something else. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are verifiable materials that should not be in an encyclopedia, like phone numbers, for example. However, I do take issue with the statement on WP:V that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", since that is only part of the inclusion threshold -- this page (WP:N) is part of it, or at least the guidelines mentioned in WP:DP, as are WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NFT, WP:VANITY, etc. They are all criteria for inclusion and the actual bar (sum-total average of all those) is Higher than just WP:V alone. This statement is misleading. 70.101.147.91 09:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are existing policies and guidelines, apart from WP:N, enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

Comment: I've argued "yes", and remain unconvinced that the answer isn't "no", but I have my own ideas about how WP:N could be genuinely useful, that echo some of the things others have said here, with regard to defining and guidance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've collected my thoughts on this and say "no, but..." I think the existing criteria (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, etc., combined with the WP:DEL process of incorporating well-crafted and noncontroversial subject-specific notability criteria into Policy) are sufficient, technically. But it's not very user-friendly. If WP:N can be made to provide a better "user interface" for notability, that would probably be a Good Thing. The devil will just be in the details - keeping WP:N from interfering with WP:DEL and its existing SSNC's, etc. I'm coming around to this viewpoint after giving WP:NFT and WP:NOT some hard thought. Both are in part (and to differing extents) restatements of other policy with a notability-related frosting on top, but are undeniably valuable in maintaining WP's encyclopedic nature. If anything, WP:NFT may go a little too far in spots (the entire thing is written in a pretty snotty tone and arguably violates WP:BITE), an effect that could be moderated by WP:N being well-crafted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Very yes. -- Chris is me 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If verifiability is not enough, how do we provide enough guidance so that we can create a minimally encyclopedic article?

Note: substitue "If existing policies and guidelines, aside from WP:N, are not enough" for "If verifiability is not enough" in this subheading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I say that we need a standard that says that an article must show that it can be referenced to multiple sources that deal with the topic in non-trivial ways and where such references appear in reliable sources that are independant from the article itself. Now, you can put these statements into a guideline called "Steve" for all I care. If the contention is that the word "notability" contains too much baggage to ever be objective, then fine. But the above standards I list ARE objective, and need to be able to be found in a SINGLE location that we can refer people to so that they can find them and use them to write better articles or comment on AFDs in constructive ways. --Jayron 32 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, there are already policies in place that let us do this. Again, I will ask for a real world example of an article that should be deleted, but cannot be based on existing policy. No one has yet provided one. No more rulecruft is required. Trollderella 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Any page that fails to meet WP:NOT can be deleted based on WP:NOT. When someone asks why it was deleted, if you have nowhere to point them but to WP:NOT, they're going to get a piss-poor explanation, giving the impression of much more subjectivity and capriciousness than this page gives, even in its current imperfect state.

You seem to be assuming that the reason for having this guideline is to facilitate deletion of articles. That is incorrect; do you understand why? One good reason for having this guideline is to prevent deletion of articles. If someone says "delete, non-notable" about a topic that has enough sources to get it past WP:NOT, then you can point to this page and say "You can't argue non-notability, for this article, by the guideline itself." Why are you against that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[NB: Did you really mean WP:NOT up there? I get the impression you mean WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ]

Um... it amounts to the same thing, right? If we're arguing that WP:N should basically say, in clear language, that any article that has enough sources to satisfy WP:NOT is "notable", then "enough sources to get past WP:N" = "enough sources to get past WP:NOT", the difference being that WP:NOT isn't terribly clear about what it's requiring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't criticizing, just asking for clarification. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I'm in favor of whatever will make it clearer to more people, really. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you read the discussion here with this question in mind, the focus — including on the pro-WP:N side — has been very much on deletion. That said, the reasoning that "one good reason for having this guideline is to prevent deletion of articles" is one of things that is causing me to shift my position on the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that we've been focusing much more on using notability for deletion, but having an objective definition certainly cuts both ways. WP:N can be used to combat the "I've never heard of it, delete it" mindset quite effectively, I would think, because it provides a concrete way to establish notability despite what people may or may not have heard of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I had always assumed this arguement was for the utility of notability guidelines BOTH ways. I am sorry my arguements did not make that clear. The problem is we have bad, illogical, faulty, non-evidentiary, and not-policy-or-guideline based arguements from BOTH sides. Keep people tend to argue: "This information is useful, keep it" or "Me and my buddies have heard of it, so keep it". Delete people tend to argue: "I have never heard of it, so delete it" or "This topic shouldn't be famous" or other such poor arguements. The goal of notability from MY point of view has ALWAYS been to return the arguement to policy and evidence based discussions. I tend to be quite active in AfD discussions, and if you check my posts, I personally always either cite policy or evidence or both (depending on the nature of the article) and I would venture that I come down pretty close to 50/50 on the keep/delete thing with my votes. A guideline such as this could greatly improve such discussions EMENSELY. Also, we use notability in many other ways, such as the {{notability}} tag, and people who see articles they work on so tagged need to know what we mean by notability. That has nothing to do with deletion; it is a clean-up issue. --Jayron 32 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. So, how do we get to objective and concrete? (cf. #Objective 'cause it says so and #Two-fold subjectivity.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record...

I strenuously object to today's archival of posts from this page, which relegated a lot of material to an untouchable dustbin — material that was still under discussion. Rather than revert it, I'm just going to resurrect some of it verbatim. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of it were topics that, judged by the timestamp, had not been edited for a week. Pages that fill up rapidly tend to be archied rapidly. (Radiant) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted, but please see #Topic resurrections for closure below. There was great material from you and several other parties in there that simply hadn't been gotten around to yet. If anything, it may be the best (from consensus-building p.o.v.) content there was. I'm not a fan of time-based archival, because it makes the questionable assumption that prolonged silence equals... well, anything, other than people have lives and they're busy.

[Recovered from archivial as an unaddressed issue; it is a response to my (SMcCandlish) objection to Werdnabot, following on someone else's, I think it was Centrx's.:]

Actually, I think you misread events. I have been actively unarchiving the discussions because I felt the archiving was being mishandled. I was looking for a more equitible way to reduce the size of the page, without effectively ending discussions before they reached their conclusion. When you quote me, be careful to attribute all of my positions to me. It was other users that moved discussions to talk pages that caused active discussions to stop before resolutions. It was my actions that returned the discussions here to allow them to remain open. I support your position 100%, and am against archiving active discussions. My proposal to bring in Werdnabot was only to allow archival of dead discussions; one cannot accuse Werdnabot of using archival as a way of intentionally killing a discussion they disagreed with the way that one could accuse a human editor of doing the same. not that I am doing that in any way. It was intended as a preemptive strike against such feelings, which could have occurred if human-editor-archival was allowed to continue. --Jayron 32 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayron, I did not mean to feather you with the tar. There were (still are) some legit issues with the human-moderated archival going on, and the sudden introduction right at that moment of bot-mediated archival seemed part-and-parcel. If you're saying that Wernabot would prevent such issues from arising again, then I for one am all for it, and retract any objection. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Topic resurrections for closure

[These are a few topics recovered from the archives that weren't done with. Others should feel free to pull back more of them if necessary; these were just the ones that struck me personally as needing recovery. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

I have already explained that the situation has changed in the past few years so we cannot rely on old quotes; the wiki evolves. To cite myself, "we have literally exploded in size, and this has all sorts of nasty side effects such as OTRS, a "shoot on sight" order regarding advertisements and libel, and an influx of both undesirable editors and undesirable articles which led to stricter ways of dealing with both. One might say that eventualism is losing grip because we have already crossed most bounds most eventualists figured we would eventually cross." I do not see how this guideline contradicts or otherwise conflicts with DP and/or V, but have no objection in principle to rewording. (Radiant) 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it has changed, pretty much as you describe, though I think it has changed in additional ways that are detrimental, and directly related to WP:N being labelled as a Guideline. I do agree with your point that eventualism is pretty much a moot stance. I recognize that you disagree with my stance that WP:N is in conflict with WP:V and WP:DP (and hope to resolve that disagreement in some way), and am happy to hear that you're open to re-wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you think that (it has changed in addional ways etcetera, but I would like to see evidence of that. Other than that we seem to mostly agree. (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm too sleep deprived to get into it now, but this sounds good! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too. You explained the subjectivity thing and I understood your argument, but this contradicting thing you've never seem to have put to rigor. 74.38.34.192 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Look for where Radiant said he thought I was being too legalistic. It's in the material just above that (as well as about 15 places in the archives, but I think I explained it better at the "legalistic" spot than elsewhere.) Oh, actually it's just about a screenful below this, beginning with "I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this"... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, it pains me to see you guys talk past each other. Regarding the old quote, SMcCandlish brought that up to make one simple point "the present resembles the past, in one particular way." An old quote is an entirely reasonable way to make that point - show us where someone in the past was saying the same things that are being said today. [...] GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using a quote to make a point about the past - however, as I stated in my above comment, the present is significantly different from that past. Thanks for clearing up the 'contradiction' part of WP:V, but it is clear that being verifiable has never been the only criterion for inclusion. For instance, content must also be NPOV, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. (Radiant) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That [What GTBaccush said] is a large part, but not all, of it. My review of the once nearly impossible-to-find "ancient" materials on this topic (now restored to WP:INT and WP:FAME) have lead me to the conclusion that the really substantive issues at the core of this debate have not changed or been dealt with since 2003 or so, maybe even earlier. The thing is, I don't think that makes the issues unresolvable, only indicatory that they've not been yet addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[...]As for how this guidline "contradicts" WP:V in SMcCandlish's way of thinking, I agree that it's counter-intuitive, at least to my understanding of the word "contradict". I would think a direct contradiction of WP:V would look like, "there is some material that we can include without verifying". When SMcCandlish says "directly contradicts" in this context, he means that it goes beyond what's required by WP:V, that it extends that policy. The only part of WP:V that's "contradicted" in the sense of the word that I understand, is an implication that a fact being verifiable is the only requirement for inclusion. This guideline does indeed suggest a higher bar, in a way. Facts must not only be verifiable, but must be included in an article on a topic that has enough verifiable facts about it to sustain an article. GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this from a legal-based, "rules of order", perspective (which appears to be what Wikiepedia Policy is based on, as well as other processes WP has, especially the ArbCom which uses a structure and procedure and nomenclature borrowed wholesale from the US legal system). If Rule A says "the criteria for X is 'snorkel'", and a subordinate (i.e. Guideline, not Policy) rule B says "No, actually the criteria for X is 'snorkel + weasel'" — i.e., a more stringent requirement — then the lesser rule (the Guideline) is definitively and categorically wrong (i.e. inactivated and countermanded) because it conflicts with a higher-level mandate (i.e. the Policy), in the same way that a conflict between US (or Canadian or Botswanan or whatever) Supreme Court caselaw trumps more-provincial court decisions. Where two WP Policies (which appear definitionally to be of equal weight) come into conflict (e.g. the broad and permissinve WP:V versus the narrowing and limiting WP:DEL), then there seems to be no problem with the narrower and more limiting competitor (e.g. WP:DEL with its roster of Policy-recognized notability criteria) superceding, within its narrow field, the more broad "law" (in this case, WP:V); the narrowing was clearly the intent. My "beef" with WP:N is that it assumes the power to trump both and set a new system-wide standard that seeks to supersede power and precedence of not just WP:V but WP:DEL as well. WP:N simply is not Policy. Guideline or not, it is just "too big for its britches" as my grandma says. I think this is reparable, which is a point I've been trying to make for some time but not successfuly doing so. Maybe I just suck at getting points across or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: To clarify further: "goes beyond" and "extends" are (limitedly) synonymous with "contraverts" or "violates" in this particular context, because of the hierachical relationship between Polcies and Guidelines. It's not some kind of accusation of impropriety, just a description of hierarchical validity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But what if Rule A says nothing about weasels. It only mentions snorkels. The absense of Rule A even mentioning weasels does not mean that it forbids them. It takes no stance on weasels. Likewise, Rule B confirms Rule A by itself saying that snorkels are required. However, since Rule A is inadequate in that it was not designed to handle weasels. To restate it: The scope of Rule A does not include weasels... it was only designed to handle snorkels. Weseals, however, are not being dealt with in any way. So Rule B is subordinate to Rule A in that it confirms everything that Rule A says about snorkels, but it ALSO adds additional restrictions on weasels. There is no problem with this addition, because Rule A only deals with weasels, and also makes no mention that other rules could not add to it. It only says "Snorkel". If Rule A said "Weasel and not snorkel" you would have a case. Since Rule A only says "Weasel" and Snorkel is left undealt with, Rule B is necessary and justified. --Jayron 32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to think on this for a while, after I back-convert your conversion of my metasyntactic variables for mass nouns relating to concepts into widget-referent count nouns. <fzzzt spark pop>. I think I see your point, but I also think it doesn't entirely address mine, but I'm not totally positive of that without some further gedankenin' for a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I believe you look at things too legalistically. Nevertheless, would it help if we added a statement that the topic-specific guidelines trump this one? (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very good actually. PS: I'm not aiming for "legalistic" but strucuralist; if we're given a Western-law-based structure (which it seems we clearly are), then working within that structure can seem legalistic (and necessarily is, at a procedural and logical level), but isn't necessarily so in every respect. The consensus nature of Wikipedia breaks from the legalist paradigm, which is mostly majoritarian-based, the one exception being the jury room; but even there, the concept of "consensus" is far more strict and unfruitful. It really is a new territory here. Rockin'. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "but isn't necessarily so in every respect", Cf. WP:WL — obviously some aspects of the legal system are eschewed. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To bring this elementary discussion back to the realm of Wikipedia, we need WP:N because WP:V is inadequate. Verifiability is a neccesary but insufficient criteria for encyclopedic content. The level of coverage that a topic garners in reliable sources must be considered. WP:N is an attempt to achieve consensus on how much verifiable content is needed before an article can be written Calling it a policy or a guideline or calling it "Steve" redirects the discussion in a way as to obfuscate the issue. We need a clear written "code" that we achieve via consensus as to which articles are "worthy" and which are "not worthy" and that code needs to be adequate AND objective. Verifiability is inadequate and leaving it to personal opinion is subjective. Have a clear external standard we can apply an article to, where that standard is only based on measurable objective qualities like number of sources and depth of coverage, is what is needed. THIS DOCUMENT IS TRYING TO MEET THAT NEED. To debate the validity of the document by pushing the discussion into a semantic tangent is disingenuous. This document exists to meet a shortcoming. If you can improve the document to better meet the shortcoming THAN DO SO. If you feel that the shortcoming is NOT being fixed by this document, THEN PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE. Meta-arguements like "the nature of this arguement is invalid because the arguement argues abotu something it shouldn't argue about" is obfuscatory. Fix this document or propose an alternative. All other discussions are only taking us away from fixing the problem. --Jayron 32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Jayron. Criteria are meant to be additive. For instance, WP:V says we want our pages to be verifiable - it doesn't mention other criteria. If a page is verifiable and also a copyvio, we don't want it, and one can't claim that we should keep a copyvio because it's verifiable (or indeed, an unverifiable article because it's not a copyvio). (Radiant) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Two very good points. I want to address them (and not even in a particularly debative, but more like clarifyingatative, way), but only after some sleep. My eyelids are literally sticking together. <yawn style="gape: huge;" /> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME POINT!!!!!! You really hit the nail on the head with that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And drove it all the way into the wood too.) 74.38.34.192 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to scream at us, BTW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was just so impressed. 74.38.34.192 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We ALREADY HAVE all the rules we need on this. Please, please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of this policy. There is too much rulecruft already, and no towering mountain of articles that shouldn't be here, waiting for this policy. Trollderella 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR may be helpful for you. And note that this page is not policy in the first place. (Radiant) 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not policy, I meant 'waiting for this page to become policy. Please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of sufficent rules. Trollderella 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This page isn't becoming policy either. I've heard rumors of groups of people that love deleting articles, but I am not part of such an alleged group, and I don't recall having spoken to anyone that is. (Radiant) 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, if WP:N goes forward I would frankly be surprised if it did not become Policy at some point. That's one of the reasons I've considered the debate so important. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Real world example in favor of WP:N?

Can anyone provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of sufficent rules? I keep asking for a real example of why this is necessary, but nothing is forthcoming. Anyone? Trollderella 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered roughly three times that, since WP:N contains no rules that aren't already present in WP:V and WP:NOT, your question contains implicit, incorrect assumptions. Those of us arguing for this guideline aren't defending it on the grounds that it's needed to delete articles. On the other hand, it contains information about how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, and as such, it's very useful, especially since WP:NOT is very abstract and doesn't contain any guide to application. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that given how damaging it is, I can't really understand why, if you agree it isn't needed, you're still so keen on pushing it. Trollderella 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We probably would disagree about just how "damaging" it is, for one thing. As to why I'm supporting it, I'm actually arguing that we should fix it to make it less damaging, while it seems you're tooth and nail against any attempt to make it less damaging. It's like it's all or nothing: kill it completely, or let it be as subjective and crappy as it can be. I can't see that any previous effort has been made to fix it, before last month, but you seem to be against that effort. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. It is necessary as long as the notability concept is used anywhere, in order to explain it. It might be somewhat crap at the moment but that doesn't mean it is irredemable. 74.38.34.192 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am finding myself concurring strongly with both of the above two comments (74.38.34.192 and GTBacchus). This isn't a swipe at Trollderella, with whom I agree on various other issues elsewhere on this page; but we are not entirely of one mind on all of this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I honestly appreciate your harm reduction approach, and would certainly prefer your version to the one that is most used. However, I can't actively support more redundant rulecruft. Trollderella 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer if WP:NOT were edited to make it more concretely applicable? That's one option that's occurred to me during these discussions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very interesting. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide an example of some articles that cannot currently be deleted without WP:NOT being edited to make it more concrete, I might prefer that. I'm still stuggling to understand what problem this is supposed to solve. Trollderella 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm thinking about it. The trouble is, a lot of examples I think of fall under subject specific notability criteria, like WP:CORP or WP:BIO. I don't know whether you consider those to be redundant rulecruft. The thing about subject specific criteria is that we can't cover every subject that may come up. I think of WP:N as a safety net, to catch anything that falls past all of the specific notabiltiy guidelines. Anything failing to satisfy WP:NOT, and not already covered by WP:WEB or one of the others would work as an example, though. You take any article that could be deleted by citing WP:NOT - it's pretty likely that, in an AfD today, more people would say "non-notable" than would say "delete, per WP:NOT", even though the second is accurate and more direct.

This guideline, as I'm seeing it, is a place to explain what some us of already mean when we say "notable", and what we would like to hold everyone to mean, if they're going to use that word at all. If you'd like to convince people to cite WP:NOT instead of this guideline, then I wish you luck, but until you succeed, we're going to provide a way for you to keep people honest. If someone says "delete, non-notable", and yet it's a topic that has enough verifiable information to get past WP:NOT, then you can say, "I don't even agree with that concept, but if you're going to cite it, at least read it; per the guideline, material is only 'non-notable' if...," and don't let them get away with using some "I've never heard of it" criterion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a goal for WP:N that I could support (though it doesn't yet go as far as I'd like, in helping ensure consistency in the subject-specific NN criteria themselves.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Think about it: if you say "non-notability is not a valid reason for deletion," you probably get ignored a lot, or written off as a rabid inclusionist. On the other hand, if you throw the very guideline they're citing back at them, you're in a much better position, and if they don't like it, they can come here and argue with us.

How's that, for a pitch? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Got my attention, FWIW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Three issues for Trolldella: 1) Notability is being used as a rationale for all kinds of decisions at wikipedia. To pound on the wall and wail "it should not be used" is counter to reality. To not want notability to be an issue is one thing. To claim that it isn't an issue is something else entirely. The problem exists. The guideline is needed to deal with it. To remove the guideline is to ostrich ourselves and say "la la la no one ever needs any guideline on what a notable article is". Apparently, they do. Even if they shouldn't, they still do and we are here to meet that need. 2) Show me another guideline or policy that clearly describes how much verifiable information is enough to write an article from The issue is that no other policy or guideline addresses this issue Yes, we can coble together 3 or 4 other policies and guidelines and maybe interpret a few of them to also justify deleting articles that were deleted for lack of notability. But that does not bely the fact that no other guideline or policy exists that serves the purpose this one is trying to. It is not redundant as you claim because no other policy or guideline is currently meeting the need this one is. 3) Wikipedia is about consenus. You have been argueing by yourself that the guideline needs to be removed wholesale. Everyone else here is argueing for ways to change or improve the guideline. Arguements to improve or change indicate consensus that the guideline is needed in the first place. I have been on the losing end of a consensus, and I have been adult enough to admit that, while I still hold my feelings very strongly, I see that the preponderance of Wikipedia users sees otherwise, and so, while I disagree, I let it drop. --Jayron 32 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Washington Post article

The WashPost article that was added then removed then reverted: I'm with Centrx on removing it; it's a very one-sided article, and while I can even sympathize with some of what it says, I don't think it adds to the debate much less improves the proposal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. We have other pages for "what newspapers say about Wikipedia". (Radiant) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm done.

Hi.

I wanted to say that I'm done here with this debate, at least for now. I think I've had enough discussion, and this thing has gotten so long and convoluted it's turning into a chore for me. I think I've provided enough points, arguments, and questions for you all to consider & dispute, and hope that eventually a consensus will be achieved on this issue, although I'm not going to hold my breath on it (this has been going for what, 3 years? 4?). I guess one reason I kept going was because I found this to be very addictive, but it's starting to get in the way of a lot of other things I want to do, and thus I'm letting it go for now. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for SMcCandlish: You said that you had softened up a little ("10-15 percent") on your "WP:N should die" stance. Did any of the points/arguments I brought up factor into this? The reason I'm asking is because there are some people on the net that are so rock-solid in their opinions that they won't budge even a tenth of an inch. 74.38.34.192 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heck, at this point it is much larger that 10-15%; I think WP:N is actually salvageable in some form; I would have laughed at that proposition two weeks ago. No one person's post changed my mind; it's been a very synchretic process, with a lot more to do with others' willingness to play ball than to do with any particular point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if any of my posts contributed to it, even though I was far from the only one involved. Did my posts play a part in you coming to this new conclusion? Ie. did you think I raised any valid points? It's just that I've argued with some people about other things who are absolute shut boxes that don't want to see _any_ points I make. Especially consdering that "two weeks ago" was about the time I started to really involve myself in this thing. 74.38.34.192 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine they must have, but I can't think of any that have tremendously stood out for me from the rest of the debate. I'm not really sure why you're a) trying to get some kind of yea or nay out of me, and repeatedly mentioning how closed minded some people are. I think I've demonstrated that I'm not closed minded, since I've, well, changed my mind, on quite a number of things here. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess because that I had a lot of experience with closed-minded people that weren't quite so fun to argue with (they were particularly "rabid" in their opinions), and after all that I wanted to see if I had found a person/group that was better than that. That's why I asked. 74.38.34.192 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Well, yeah, because WP has built-in safety valves like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc., and a process for blocking problem user, and most importantly a community willing to enforce, it largely prevents Usenet-style endless flamewarring. I took a look at Usenet a few months ago and it's just a wasteland of noise. I'm surprised anyone even still runs NNTP services on their machines any more (I would hazard a guess that the binaries traffic is the only reason Usenet isn't as forgotten as FidoNet.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. But anyway, I'm done here. Thanks a lot for the response, though. It answered my questions. 74.38.34.192 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

74, I've appreciated your contributions here. Thanks for maintaining civility and a solution-oriented approach. You've definitely been helpful. I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'm going to or want to be a true Wikipedian, ie. someone that devotes himself to this thing. I don't really edit the actual WP itself that much (any edits I do make are very, very small indeed), and aside from the stuff I said here on this discussion page, I don't really have much else to say or do with Wikipedia right now except to read it. I have way more things I want to do than Wikipedia, but I thought I'd just give this obviously highly-contested thing a little more debate to help it out. I'm sorry if I don't have any more to do, but I guess some people just "come and go", and I'm one of them. Glad to hear though that I at least did something positive, after all the negative crap I've gotten in other forums on other websites. But I doubt you'll "see me around the Wiki", at least for a while, as I'm signing off on Wikipedia and moving on. I will say that I found at least some of your community much more open-minded and willing to change than other groups out there. So, goodbye, and good luck with the project! 74.38.34.192 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability in AfD

Idea: This could be a section for reactions people have to real AfDs in which notability-type arguments play a role. If we're trying to have this guideline reflect current practice, let's put some examples of current practice on the table and look at 'em. -GTB

I changed the header of this section and added some italic text at the top, partly to make it less pointed at one person, and partly so we can easily include other reactions to AfDs here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Further idea: At next archival, archive these 3 comments and a copy of the subheading, xref back to the "live" version, and refactor the above 2 comments into a new anon, section-descriptive intro here, and just keep this section, archiving moribund posts to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Hilton

Radiant, I'd like to request explanation of your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hilton. You said "not elected = not notable". I'm asking here, because you're involved in this discussion, and... why would you say that? I feel like we've been working hard here to establish that "not notable" means "not covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources". Why would you, while this discussion is happening, imply that it's something else? Clearly many failed candidates are notable for various reasons. What about multiple independent sources? Aren't those the acid test for notability? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And according to WP:BIO not just WP:N, that is an acceptable criterion. 70.101.145.209 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles...This is not intended to be an exclusionary list...Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This is a criterion for inclusion, stating that winners of the elections are likely to be notable by definition. This has nothing to do with whether or not losers of major elections are not notable (and even if the Candidates notability guideline draft eventually says that they are not notable, categorically, this still would not speak to Hilton's notability particularly, since he could be still be notable on other grounds. Anyway, WP:BIO definitely does not say that losers of elections are categorically non-notable; it does not speak to this issue at all, one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't have used shorthand there. There was, in my opinion, not enough information available on this person to write an article about, and this is, in my opinion, usually the case about not-yet-elected politicians. Note that the article contained such trivia as "he cannot spell the word millennium", which is hardly encyclopedic. I suppose redirecting him to an article about his party would be nice. (Radiant) 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disasgree with deleting the article. His claim of notability was not that he ran for office, but seems to be related to his internet activities - apparently he runs some popular UK political blog sites. I just think it's important to emphasize in AfD that "non-notable" !votes are source based, because a number of people seem to think otherwise, that notability has something to do with fame or popularity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole "not elected" thing is, IMO, a symptom of the problems with WP:N. (Yes, I think it has problems, although I think its existence is crucial.) Many many articles about political candidates get deleted, often unopposed; yet they meet all the basic criteria most people would consider important. Multiple non-trivial mentions, if not whole articles, profiles, and editorials, in region-wide print and other media, etc etc. Not to put too fine a point on it, but why shouldn't wikipedia have an article on every also-ran? --Dmz5 05:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AboutUs.org

The admin's close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AboutUs.org was heartening, I thought. We have got a link to WP:ILIKEIT in this guideline, buried under a bunch of historical counter-proposals in the "See also" section. A benefit of SMcCandlish's /historical subpage suggestion below would be to focus readers' attention on value-adding links like that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Objection to this section

This seems to belong as a Namespace file (like Wikipedia:Notability/AfDs. To include it in the main talk page seems counter to the purpose of the talk page. The whole point of this talk page is ways to improve the guideline, not to call out editors for their perceived faulty arguements, or any of the like. I don't deny that this information MAY belong, but having it as part of the talk page seems wrong to me. It is certauinly useful evidence as to what consensus notability is, but this seems like it opens itself up to abuse too easily. If you have a comment on an AfD, make the comment AT THE AfD discussion. If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their User Talk page. This current discussion doesn't really seem germain to what this talk page is supposed to be for... --Jayron 32 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do anything inappropriate. I thought it could be helpful to discuss a couple of example cases while hammering out just what we need this guideline to say. Please feel free to refactor this section into any venue or format that you find congenial, anyone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I think the material has value, but Jayron's got a good point. I even like his filename. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on AfD, Chakat

What makes notablity exactly? We've tried to bring up reasons for 'notability' of this article, such as it was published as both a comic book and as a 75 page book. That seems pretty 'notable' but their seems to be a disagreement on what is notable or not. For example; a comic book called Four-footed Furries was published by Shanda Fantasy arts, a small company. However, one of the users performs a Amazon.com search for it, and declares it an invaild notable reason, because there was few 'hits' for it. I guess what I'm asking is, why does the an article have to have sources, who, in turn, are also well-known. It's like a web; Harry Potter is a famous book, so (whatever publishing company) is also notable, and vice visa; the Publish company is well known, so that means books they publish are also notable. I've already pointed out that articles like Noonean Soong exist as 'notable' articles, despite the fact that he is, a very minor character in the TNG. In any case, it would be interesting to see what you say. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward: History

The first thing I'd like to do, moving forward and working on the projectpage, is move all of the historical materials relating to the topic and consolidate them into [[Wikipedia:Notabilty/Historical]] (already have a draft index page for it; it would refer in kind to [[Wikipedia:Notability/History/*]] where * = various dead proposals), and that all the historical links be removed from the article and replaced with one link to this Historical page. I think this would simultaneously satisfy me and other "disputatious types" :-) by preserving the very difficult-to-fully-find history of this wikitopic, with the compromise that the extent of the history (and the contentiousness of that history) will be a lot less promiment; and satisfy Radiant by cleaning up the article and making it less disputatiously worded, with the concession that the history would be findable clearly (e.g. in "See also" or some other obvious place) from the WP:N page, just in a lot less detail. Oh, and I chose "/Historical" to avoid confusion with the WP:N "history" page. I could just Be Bold and go do it, but I'd rather make sure there's at least some level of buy-in first. As for why I want to bother, I strongly suspect that even a few years from now debate will continue to flare up and that the archive will be of value in demonstrating (eventual; I don't think we're there yet) consensus, and both preserving various viewpoints that may have value not yet recognized, but also preventing reintroduction of rejected ideas. I also just kind of want to tie off this "insufficiently understood history" debate point, fix it in time as a museum piece, and get on with more substantial work on this. Any thoughts? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. "Those who cannot remember the past...," right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Radiant) 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability and the 'it is on a non-English Wikipedia' test

If this has been discussed, please point me at the relevant archive listing. I came across an interesting AfD discussion a few minutes ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aigle (company)). A statement made in a couple of forms during this discussion was "being on French Wikipedia makes it notable". What do you think about this? Does the existence of an article on a non-English Wikipedia constitute sufficient notability for inclusion as a separate article in the English Wikipedia? Thanks for the thoughts. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would depend. If the article is a stub, or is up for AfD, or covered in fix-it tags, or the English article is bunk and was posted by the same person that did most of the work on the French version, — i.e., see WP:RS — I would think not, but if it's non-stub, sourced article in good standing, I do not see why it couldn't be evidenciary, as one of the "multiple independent sources". I do not think it could be a "guarantee" of adequate notability for the example reasons just mentioned and because we don't, as a community, have any idea what the inclusion standards are over at fr.wikipedia.org. All that said, any sources cited in the French article count toward en.wikipedia.org notability establishment (and if the English article is insufficiently cited, and it is kept because the French citations qualify it as notable, then it should be tagged with one or another of the verifiabilty-related header or inline templates. If it remains uncited, it could be AfD'd again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the above, mostly. Wiki articles aren't reliable sources, and so they are not sufficient as an indicator of notability or anything else. However, they certainly should give us pause for thought (in this respect, the interwiki test is perhaps similar to the Google test). If created independently from the EN article, an article on another language WP is a very strong indicator that an article is notable/sourceable. -- Visviva

If the French version is properly sourced, then those sources are indication of notability; if not, then that doesn't tell us much. If the sources themselves are in French, that shouldn't stop them from establishing notability, but we might need help with translation. Fortunately, it's not hard to find francophones around here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

historically fluid

Please see this. VigoDeutschendorf 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things... first, it is obviously true that anything famous ten or a hundred years ago should still have an article even if nobody's heard of it any more. But second, we tend to overemphasize the importance of current or recent events (WP:CSB) - and as such we shouldn't blow the current hypes and memes out of proportion and think that they really are famous for all time. In particular, I'm referring to any number of internet fads and YouTube movies that are the talk-of-the-moment but ultimately forgettable. (Radiant) 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, keep in mind also that we have page count limits. We aren't bound by being in 26 printed and bound voumes, A-Z. Per Jimbo, this is the sum total of human knowledge. What is notable to 500,000~ people today may be notable to 10 people researching it 10 years from now, and the few minutes work documenting it today and the 10kb of data space it takes on our servers is neglible. VigoDeutschendorf 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "notable to 10 people"? Notability isn't a measure of how important people think something is, but whether it's been documented non-trivially in independent sources. If it has, it doesn't matter whether anybody thinks it's notable - it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely! I see a user has just removed my additions, which I feel should be put back in. My point is simple: if something qualifies as "notable" today, why should it not be in one month? One year? One decade? I posit that once notability is established, there is no reason not to keep a permanent article thus on that subject, going forward. If something/someone is covered appropriately in 2006, why should it be possibly unnotable in 2008, simply because RS sources do not continue to cover it then? VigoDeutschendorf 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if notability could actually be distinguished from importance. If people would actually use that measure of notability then it would be a much smoother ride on wikipedia. Alas, they don't! Notability on Wikipedia distinctly seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Ansell 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Importance is irrelevant and not ours to decide. What is important to an American may be trivial to an Indian, and what is important to an Indian may be irrelevant to an Englishman. VigoDeutschendorf 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's only been a couple of weeks that we've had anything close to an objective definition written into the guideline. All it takes it promoting it now, and repeating a few hundred times that "notability" is a question about the existence of sources - no more, no less. As more and more people start saying that over and over, we'll have a cultural shift underway. It takes a little while, but like you said, it's be a smoother ride, the closer we get. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. VigoDeutschendorf 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Real world example

See John Mark Karr. Arguably, he will be a footnote to the larger story of Ramsey, but still is clearly beyond meeting any qualification for notability. How many news articles or books will cover him in 2-4 years? This is a prime example of the need for the new passage I added. Remember again; we have no limits on the number of "at one point" notable topics we can cover. VigoDeutschendorf 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to handle cases like that is to just focus on sources. If he's documented non-trivially in multiple independent published sources, then he's "notable" by definition. As long as that documentation exists, it can be used to verifiy the information in the article, and we're good. There's no need for talking about when something is or was notable - that just distracts from the real question: does there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, or not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is observing comments that "concensus" can change. Notability, once established, cannot change or decrease. The idea is absurd. And again, importance is irrelevant. VigoDeutschendorf 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is little to indicate that Wikipedia is going to suddenly decide that articles with copious references in reliable sources will suddenly become unworthy. Yes, consensus can change, but I doubt that "We just don't think this belongs because we think it isn't important" will ever reach consensus as a valid arguement. once something has valid references, those references do not disappear, once-notable always-notable. Remember, wikipedia is not paper, so we have no compelling reason to delete a well researched and referenced article. --Jayron 32 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What to do about this?

I think all of this may highlight another problem - some of the subject-specific NN criteria aren't so limited in scope as "multiple independent sources", and make a lot of "this is categorically and this is categorically not notable" type of judgements, which do in fact appear to be guages of "fame and importance"; indeed, this seems to be at least the main purpose of most of those topical NN guidelines (cf. WP:MUSIC as a good example). So what do we do about that? The difference between the WP:DEL-style NN guidelines (some of which have the power of Policy due to their enumeration in WP:DEL as deletion-actionable) and WP:N is likely to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and hinder the spread of, or just plain contradict, the more objective interpretation at WP:N. WRT putting in to WP:N's text a "once notable always notable" clause, I'm going to abstain for now. It doesn't strike me as necessary, as part of the definition, since the definition (needing work though it may be) already subsumes the issue by virtue of the fact that it doesnt's say there is a time limit, but I don't see that it would do any harm - lots of guidelines have explanatory passages that deal with misinterpretations/misconceptions about their meaning. I suggest that it could be helpful to WP:N's full acceptance if WP:N enumerated common (i.e. derived from AfD) fallacies about it, such as the "was notable last month, isn't notable any more" kind of reasoning pointed out here, "I don't like it", and nother nonsense, and might help prevent future edits to WP:N that harm its objectivity (that is, if WP:N does not address these subtopics at all, it may look ripe for "clarification" by people who do not understand it, by way of addition of new sentences that reflect their pet misconceptions about notability - misconceptions that may be quite common (i.e. popular on AfD) at the time and thus might seem like "consensus" to the editor. Whereas, if WP:N already had a short clarifying passage on the subtopic in question, reversing it without consensus being arrived at on this talk page would be discouraged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the material from WP:ILIKEIT could be merged in here, in some form? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "misconceptions" section is a good bet, I think. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of historically fluid

Does anyone object to this being included in the guideline, who is a participant here? It has been twice removed by people who have not previously contributed to these pages but that appear to be following my edits from other pages. VigoDeutschendorf 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea should be included in some form, but I would be sure to put it in terms that are consistent with the definition of notability we're working with. It should be clear that "notability" never means "fame" or "importance", and that the reason something remains "notable" over time is that the sources verifying the article's contents don't go away. It shouldn't me presented as anything more abstract than that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also support including it in a list of "common misconceptions about notability", perhaps along with some material from WP:ILIKEIT. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind redoing a quick edit of my paragraph to these ends? VigoDeutschendorf 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how this works. Is it close to what you were thinking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See the version I did below (edit conflict). I'm sure the ideas can be merged. Re: "NN is not 'fame' or 'importance'" above - I think it's also important to say that it isn't 'popularity' or 'currency' either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In general it's not so that any thing once noted is then notable forever. The web is full of nine-day wonders that are famous, then forgotten, then are listed for deletion. This is as it should be, or the cruft would grow forever. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "notable". According to this guideline, "notable" means being covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources. As long as there's enough WP:RS material to write a verifiable article that is more than a directory listing per WP:NOT, I don't see the problem. Are we to subjectively determine whether something is "famous enough" to keep an article, based on some standard other than sourcing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, see below; I believe I addressed this in general. To be more specific in response to your post: WP has no cognizable definition of "cruft", and no hint of a policy that subjects that are not popular right now should not be included. It is good that articles exist on what you call "nine-day wonders" (as long as they really are notable, not just WP:NFT stuff), such as All your base are belong to us and Mahir. These articles are of great encyclopedic value, precisely because their subjects are no longer popular or current, making it hard to find any reliable information about them other than at Wikipedia. Related anectdote: Mahir was flown to the US by a dotcom in 1999 or 2000 and feted with a huge party at the Hamm's Building (which I was working in at the time) in San Francisco. Net.notables from all over were present, as if Mick Jagger were making an appearance. This entire odd little chapter in the dotcom weirdness of the late 1990s is both exemplary of the very weirdness of that subculture and period and (more to the point) difficult to explain or understand without the Mahir "fad" article existing. Even I didn't fully understand what was happening at the time (and I was pretty net.hip) or who this guy really was being given an almost manic welcome; if I had only heard about it today, I would have no idea at all what it had been about without such an article; the topic would be far too difficult to research alone, as most of the publications that mentioned Mahir on paper are long since defunct after the dotcom crunch. Articles like this are not "cruft" they are meaningful, enclopedic material (if they satisfy the PNC and WP:NFT and WP:NOT and WP:NPOV and...), collectively made of encyclopedic (WP:V, etc.) quality by editors all over the world. Their value goes up not down as time goes on. Any such article that would not be of such value is highly unlikely to every survive AfD in the first place. This "cruft" stance smacks of crystalballing and especially of terriblizing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict; this is in response to the first post on this subtopic and does not address anything else between that post and this reply] As stated above, I remain presently neutral on the need for such a passage, but I think your extant text is too long and the title a bit too... "philosophy major"; It should use plainer English and just state the point in 1-2 sentences. I think you are getting reverted in part because of this and in part because people in general don't like to see changes made to Guideline pages that haven't been discussed on the Talk page. WP:KETTLE. :-)

First stab at a rewrite (though again I'm not advocating this be inserted until the need for it has been established:)

===Notability is not "popularity", and does not expire===

While multiple recent instances of independent coverage relating to a subject can be used to establish its notability, lack of continued frequency of external references cannot establish non-notability for subjects that can satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion with older sources.

(NB: I think it's important to note that this is not just about news media coverage, and it is not just about deleting extant articles because their topics are not popular any more. This rewrite fixes both of those issues.)

On the larger topic of whether we need this, see above. I think a case can be made that we need some solution(s) to a) the multiple meanings of "notability" within the current WP context, and b) the likelihood of misguided attempts to modify WP:N to suit fallacious abuse of notability in AfD. Whatever "Notability does not expire" is part of that/those solution(s), I'm not sure just yet. As for the claim someone made somewhere that without notability having a "no longer notable" expiration clause, we'll be overrun with "fad" articles, I say a) stop exaggerating, and b) so what? Wikipedia is not paper, and documenting fads is in fact an encyclopedic task (though again I don't think this necessarily means we need a "no expiration" clause either. I consider that an open topic.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NB: Given the new "Misconceptions" section, I'm no longer neutral on including some version of this idea, but am now for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I think better describe actual practice at AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of them did not seem to reflect current thinking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:GTBacchus#Ephemeral sources: My point is that one doesn't necessarily know in advance whether a source is ephemeral (WP:NOT crystal ball).

WP:V says nothing on the point.

Note that from other existing guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") it is clear that media that afterwards (because one doesn't know in advance) prove to be ephemeral *can be used for source citation*. --Francis Schonken 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've defended this point with alacrity today, but you seems to still want to insert more verbiage. I do not undersand why. If this document takes longer than about 2 minutes to read it will be near-useless. I has to be concise. That doesn't mean sloppy, it means really, really pithy, without asides and what-ifs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Notability

There is now a new wikiproject aimed to clear the huge backlog (nearing 5000 articles) of all the CAT:NN articles. However, it is in its early stages and very low on members. If you would like to join, please add your name to the list. I will take any suggestions on how to improve this page. The backlog needs to be cleared somehow, and I suggest that a WikiProject would be the best thing to do. Diez2 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dumb and confusing typo of mine in Edit History

One of my edit histories read "Heading fix; as "Avoid misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)". This was meant to read "Heading fix; as "Misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)". The "Avoid misconceptions about notability" is what I changed it to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability cannot decrease.

I'm at a loss, on this--how can the idea of notability, once established, ever decrease? Based on the very idea and assumption we would only cover things currently relevant/heavily covered. Simply put, by applying this ideology, Father Claude Sicard, Kristin Lavransdatter, and Roger of Salisbury would have no articles--because we have no current or ongoing sources. Importance, and relevance, can change, but neither are factors for inclusion nor should they be. I could care less about the subjects of either of my three cited articles, but they warrant inclusion--because, at a time, they were notable. And still are, today. What wording would best accomplish this? And, if anyone disagrees with my statement--could you clarify for me why? VigoDeutschendorf 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First, there are ongoing sources for these major historical figures. Anyway, I think the only issue with notability decreasing is if something is characterized as "notable" in an AfD, despite there only being weak sources, which are later found in retrospect to be lacking. That is, at the time the subject was merely popular or a fan-craze, but there really were not multiple non-trivial independent reliable published sources. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example. Look at the silly lonelygirl15 thing--in 5-10 years, no one will really be (let's be honest :)) talking about it. But, for a good portion of 2006, it was covered by a variety of media/independent non-trivial sources. That is my concern--once someone hits the threshold of notability, it really can't ever in reality and common sense go away. All the various articles about her were published; the television shows about her were broadast. They aren't "ephemeral" or any other silly adjective because we can't link to them via the web on-demand. Her article will be just as valid 5-10 years from now, or 100 years from now. Hence, the policy needs language to prevent people from using "notability" as a crutch in other aspects. If I have a dozen newspaper articles in major media markets cover me, and I am interviewed extensively on television shows, but only in 2006, and qualify, why would I not qualify in 2009 if I drop off the map immediately afterwards? I am thus a historical footnote. Which is what encyclopedias cover. VigoDeutschendorf 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What's silly about "ephemeral"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Current (as of 1 hr. ago) version already addresses this, and more than that has well (for example, if no such article existed, ever, but you wanted to write one in 2015, you'd be able to do so and have it survive, because the sources would exist to demonstrate verifiability and notability.) I don't see what your argument is; it's like you're fighting with us because we already agree with you or something. <bzzzt pop spark sizzle> DOES NOT COMPUTE! <bang!> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if we mistakenly find something to be notable, then we can later determine that we were in error, but actual notability is the sort of thing that doesn't go away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is fine, but such cases will be rare. Once the "multiple" threshold is covered, it can't be really undone--the encyclopedia should reflect true reality, not concensus reality. VigoDeutschendorf 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they will be rare. We're all (here, so far as I can tell) in agreement. Now let's move on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: >[...]how can the idea of notability, once established, ever decrease?

Not a valid question. That's like saying "how can the concept that the earth is not flat, once established, ever decrease?". Notability as (finally!) being objectively defined in WP:N isn't something that expires after a while.

Re: >[...]idea and assumption we would only cover things currently relevant/heavily covered[...]

Such an idea/assumption is not one being posited by WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Verbiage

...so, what language can be put in to prevent people from misusing this, in simplest terms? Perhaps, simply, "Once a subject is covered by multiple non-trivial sources, and achieves notability, this qualification does not change in the future, and is not dependent on the subject's relevance and importance." VigoDeutschendorf 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current language is perfect on this version & section. Simply, clear, immutably true. VigoDeutschendorf 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The current (noon-ish, US Mountain Time) language (the merge between my and GTBacchus's restatements of your initial take on it, unless someone has edited it to be something else) struck me as entirely adequate (and then some, as it addressed issues such as time flow and new vs. extant articles that the VigoD. version did not address, in a shorter length to boot.) Vigo, don't bite your conceptual allies here without good cause ... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad, gentleman. I was misreading based on the insertions by other people that had snuck in, and been removed afterwards--the ones that left big fat loopholes. GT, SM, your revisions are ace. VigoDeutschendorf 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad for all the edits people are making to the page. These little flurries of rewrites, whether or not they have much net effect, are a perfectly natural reaction when policy and guideline pages are edited. It's like the community thinking aloud, processing new ideas. Some thoughts don't lead to much; others do. It's all part of the healthy functioning of the Wiki. It gives us a chance to repeat the main ideas about notability, and promoting a new improved definition involves lots of repetition. It's a Good Thing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus cannot change notability

'Concensus can change' need not be mentioned there--if something is covered in multiple independent non-trivial sources, "concensus" irregardless of how large, has no bearing on that. Simply put, if Dan Jones is covered extensively one year, but never again, he was notable for a time. Ten or one hundred WP users cannot undo, change, edit, or modify that fact, ever. Therefore, while POLICY can change, notability once established can never be communally changed.

Can we get a line or two of simple wording to reflect this? VigoDeutschendorf 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if "consensus" is spelled correctly. That aside, I agree that notability has nothing to do with consensus; it has to do with the existence of sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[netiquette grumble goes here] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who, me? I only mentioned the spelling because I was correcting the header text in this topic, and it's a pet peeve of mind, and... you're right. That was impolite. Vigo, I'm sorry about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, ur right, i spelt well. :) VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone thinks that consensus can change facts. Consensus could change the meaning of notability, however. —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True, this policy can always be changed; but policy is harder to change than anything else. My goal was to ensure policy protected content, moreso... VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vigo, I am dead certain that the current (as of half an hour ago from the sig below) version already cements this. I think the issue you are raising here is long since addressed, and then some. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Loss of source" issue

A number of the flurry of "add an entire paragraph or three" edits today have been basically circling around the issue of "what if the source isn't available any longer?" I think this is more a question for Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, but to the extent it affects notability (and to the extent that edits relating to this issue are being made, rapidfire, and in radically different language, on the projectpage...), it ought to be at least briefly addressed here in Talk, too. Personally, I think a) this question belongs in WP:V (as noted); b) if the source was cited and verified (or at least not challenged) by anyone before its disappearance, then WP:AGF applies for the nonce (i.e., don't AfD the article on that basis); and 3) there really isn't truly any such thing as disappearing sources (unless we are speaking of original research), just hard-to-find ones, and regardless, there are almost certainly other sources (which may or may not be easier to find; the issue is categorically indeterminate.) NB: I'm not certain that I can "legally" deal with any more of the these edits in the next 24 hours. WP:3RR and all - the influx of "add in this whole block of newly thought up text" edits have overlapped so much, I find myself skeptical that I could revert anything at all without, at least on the technicality of "or in part", violating 3RR: I leave it to others to deal with, while I go to sleep and then go futz with WP:CUE. Laters. PS: If any of the string of 20 or so edits-in-a-row (I made them one at a time so they could each be examined in the context of their edit summaries) rankles anyone go ahead and revert them WITH A REASONED EXPLANATION. If I disagree with the explanation, I'll bring it up here. I've had enough of competitive editing for one day. PS: I suspect that the "what if the source isn't available any more" question can be dealt with in an edit of 1-3 words. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the "misconceptions" section should basically enumerate misconceptions and explain that they're incorrect, with a minimum of fuss, right? One misconception is that notability is a function of current relevance, or something. The quickest way to say that's wrong involves noting that notability is just about sources. We can then refer the reader to WP:V and/or WP:RS for discussion of source loss. How's that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivity problem.

Hi.

Yes, I came back to this thing again :((( But I noticed this in a deletion debate (Yamanote Halloween Train):

"Speedy Delete and salt. Real isn't the issue. Notable is the issue. Would life be noticably different without this particular party? I dont't think so. It's just a party. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC) "

But wait! Notability is not about the impact it has on people's lives, it's about the coverage that something recieves, as defined under the PNC! In other words, the way to handle this article would have been to assess the coverage it had (I haven't seen the article, could someone perhaps post an undeleted copy for discussion?), not the effect it has on people's lives. Would life be different without Heim Theory? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it is not notable. It got covered in an article in New Scientist, research papers based on it have been published (look at the links at the bottom of the article!), etc. See, so what we have here is not that our definitions are highly subjective, but rather the ways in which people use the concept, "notability", are. It's that this type of subjective "roll your own rules" stuff is being accepted. That is the problem. Also, why request a salt of the article? Salting is a last-resort measure only to be used when disruptive articles are repeatedly created in their same disruptive form again and again. Since the debate, YHT has not been re-created even though no salting was done. 70.101.145.209 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Subjective arguments are often used under the guise of notability. This is a very big problem with notability as it stands. Fresheneesz 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more of a problem with the culture of AfD as it stands... this page may even help to fix that. -- Visviva 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. There is a reasonably good definition of notability on this page, although it definitely could be improved. The thing is: do people want to use it? We have to keep WP:N as long as the concept is in use, as people coming to this place might now know what "notability" means when they see it in the Wikipedia context. We could have the best WP:N page in the world and unless someone actually follows it then it's useless. We need to get people to reform. 70.101.145.209 08:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It'll take some work. It'll take lots of us participating in AfDs and repeating ourselves a lot. I agree it's a part of AfD culture that needs to change, and I'm confident that people will use an improved definition once they understand what it is and how it's working. I already see some people in AfD citing something congruent to the PNC, so we have some raw material to work with. That just needs to be encouraged, and any other use of the word needs to be gently corrected, over and over and over again. I think I need to start closing AfDs, for my part. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. It's very interesting that the ArbCom in discussing what to do about the WP:NNOT case here, have gone so far (though not unanimously) as to suggest that the current aggregate AfD behavior does not in fact represent Wikipedia consensus in general. I think this gives us a clear "mandate" or at least opportunity to try to bridge the gap between the Wikipedia community and the "AfD culture". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good response. It does not make sense that the deletion "cabal" is able to operate so independently of the rest of the community, considering that it is responsible for keeping or removing great deals of information -- whole articles. The whole community should work on those decisions and every WP policy and guideline should apply to all of WP unless it explicitly states otherwise -- so if WP:N says X is notable but Deleter over here says no it's not because (s)he hasn't heard of it, then the conclusion reached through WP:N should be used, instead of the nom's personal belief/situation. With "I haven't heard of it" as a valid deletion criterion, one could delete pretty much the entire Wikipedia! 74.38.33.15 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for more sticks on the fire, I dug up the following !votes on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_nsider:

"Delete. 370 members is not notable. --Rory096 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. 370 members? Really. Non-notable. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC) "

Huh? There is no X number of members criterion for notability ANYWHERE. This is more on the subjective application of notability. We count sources, not members. 70.101.147.91 09:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement of purpose?

Hi.

Since it seems that WP:N is, or at least should be, a clarification and elaboration of official policy, including Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue Weight, etc., should this be stated on the page, that this is what it is? From what I've seen, it clarifies them as follows:

Verifiability: Notability is designed to clarify that sufficient verifiable information must exist to make an encyclopedic article. By requiring non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, we can ensure that not only are articles verifiable, but that enough information is included.

Wikipedia is not a directory: Notability sets out guidelines to avoid including what may be directory-like information in the encyclopedia.

Neutral point of view -- undue weight: Undue weight, a part of the official NPOV policy, says that only fairly significant views should be on Wikipedia, and extremely tiny-minority views should not. Notability clarifies this by defining what we mean by "significance".

No, it doesn't. It says that they should not be given prominence in articles not about them. Eg flat earth should not get a lot of press on Earth, not that it should not be covered on flat earth. Trollderella 02:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, then. 74.38.33.15 08:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it show this as it's purpose clearly, right there in the Rationale section or something similar. Just more twigs on the fire :) 70.101.145.209 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivity, objectivity and tangibility

I'm a bit apprehensive about the spitfire of the changes by SMcCandlish but for the most part they look sensible. I nevertheless made two changes: Notability is objective → Notability is tangible and no or one sources → insufficient sources. One, "not subjective" does not imply "objective". And two, "multiple sources" does not imply "two sources". It is true that subjective criteria like "heard of it" and "obscure" should be rejected in debates, but that does not take away the leeway editors have to evaluate the tangible matter: the sources provided to back the assertions of notability. Notability is subservient to our core policies but is used as the gatekeeper to enforce them and it should always be read that way. So a notable subject is one that is covered by sufficient independent sources that provide comprehensive (WP:V/WP:OR) backing for a neutrally worded (WP:NPOV) article. Whether the provided sources meet this standard is still left to the individual editors to decide, so WP:N should not imply that there is a central mechanism or standard for evaluating the sources. ~ trialsanderrors 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if any of my changes are problematic they can be reverted or altered. &#lt;shrug&#gt; Most of them weren't particularly major edits, and I made them separarately (to Centrx's chagrin) and with rationales for each, so that they can each be looked at separately. Anyway, I have not heard of "tangibility" as an antonym of "subjectivity". Ever. I remain skeptical that the current "tangible" language will be meaningfully parseable to most readers. As for "two", the definition of "multiple" is "more than one", so I'm not sure what you are getting at. The cut-off needs to be arbitrary (in the legal sense) and specific, or the guideline will not help resolve disputes, but simply lead to more of them, as people argue and argue over what "multiple" and "sufficient" mean. If we remove the specific, standard-English definition of "multiple" and use a made up Wikipedia-only one that is wishy-washy, I think that will just be a huge can of worms. Compromise language: ~~because there are insufficient reliable published sources independent of the subject.~~ ⇒ because multiple reliable published sources independent of the subject cannot be cited. How about that? Simply reiterate the language of the guideline and don't open the question of whether it can be interpreted in unintuitive ways. Not sure what to do about "tangible" vs. "objective". A large portion of the debate to date on this talk page has been about objectivity and subjectivity, and "tangibility" never came up before Dec. 14 that I recall. Ergo, I'd suggest a reversion to "objective". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: "arbitrary" is a possible substitute for both "objective" and "tangible". But the Wikipedia on Arbitrary, even the "Law and politics" section of it, are inadequate and were clearly not written by a legal scholar, but a pundit <sigh> with a pretty negative view on the word and its possible interpretations. Also, no objection to term "tangib[le|ility]" being used in there somewhere, e.g. in a sentence explaining better what is meant by it. Not objecting to the concept; I just don't think it works well in that heading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Absent a consensus to accept your changes, the reversion would be to the original phrasing, i.e. "not subjective", and "no or few". ~ trialsanderrors 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NB: "no or few" was my wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like "not subjective", because the oft-repeated misconception being addressed is that notability is subjective, and we're saying "no, it's not subjective". If replacing "not subjective" with "objective" drags some kind of baggage into the discussion, then let's say "not subjective", to directly reply to those who cry "subjective". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in. ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me; I only changed it to "objective" on the general writing proposition that postive phrasing is preferable to negative (compare "I'm a great and honest candidate" to "I am not a terrible nor a crooked candidate"); but given actual reasons for the negative phrasing in this case, it doesn't bother me or anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this means anything at all

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that it will not be monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors." Trollderella 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems meaningful to me. This is a key problem with much of Wikipedia's coverage of areas like video games and fictional worlds. -- Visviva 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But it fails to provide any criteria for what it would mean to be 'notable enough', and what 'monopolization', 'partisan', and 'fanatic' mean. One man's enthusiast is another mans' fanatic. Many articles are plagued by what I think are partisan fanatics, such that most others are driven off, I don't see what 'notability', whatever that means (I presume here you want it to mean 'verifiability'? Trollderella 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a criteria itself, it is just one of the problems with non-notable articles and a reason for not having them or having them be separate articles. While there must be partisan fanatics at George W. Bush, there are also a host of neutral or relatively neutral editors interested in ensuring a neutral article on an important topic. In addition, as time progresses, there will be fewer partisan editors there and more encyclopedic ones. Compare a vanity article: the only person interested in editing it is himself. A non-notable band: the band's fans and perhaps some haters. Similarly for articles about companies. Another good example is articles about schools. In addition, with regard to merging, such as merging schools into school districts, you combine the efforts of editors who were working separately (on possibly mediocre articles, too) and subsume the articles that had 0 articles and were just a constant target of unfixed nonsense, jibes at the football rival, unverifiable original research, and libel. When combined, you get a single, higher quality article. —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that it is indirectly helpful for deciding an article's notability with limited information. Every single article on the wiki that does not currently have multiple, non-trivial, etc. sources should not be put up for AfD, but if an article has been unsourced POV for a year and was created by one person and forgotten, it is unlikely to be have reliable sources and unlikely to ever be improved. For modern-day subjects, if no one has fixed blatant problems with an article for a long time, it's probably not notable. For obscure but important historical subjects, few people care about POV pushing and there will be continuing, though sporadic, interest by relatively civil people. —Centrx→talk • 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's clearer to say that 'if there are few verifiable sources, the article is vulnerable to monopolization by ...' - you're using 'notability' as a proxy for verifiability. It's confusing. Trollderella 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of this page, I think, is to redefine notability as something objective, namely "non-trivial coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources." Which is not exactly te same thing as verifiability... But it might be better, given the widespread misuse of this term, if the meaning was spelled out. -- Visviva 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Trollderella's phrasing; I think it's clearer, and it's certainly accurate. "If there are few verifiable sources, the article is more vulnerable to being monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors, which can lead to compromised neutrality." Something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd preffer that! Trollderella 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, I hope you don't mind that I indented your comment. I find these threads quite a bit more difficult to follow when replies aren't indented with respect to their antecedents. I guess I would tweak the wording slightly from what I posted... technically, it's not sources that are "verifiable". It's facts that are verifiable, by means of sources. Rather than "few verifiable sources," I would say, "few reliable sources", or "few sources for verification". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is related directly to verifiability. Verifiability may be the basis for objective criteria, but tying this to verifiability covers the principle. Some 15th century mediocrity may not be very verifiable, but there is no danger of partisans monopolizing the page. Some modern popular subject, however, may have its page monopolized by partisans despite there being many highly verifiable sources. The kind of people interested in an article and there existing reliable sources about it are related, but it's not the same thing, and the neutrality is not "the primary notability criterion." —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability does not equal verifiability, notice the definition on the page. Notability, at least as it should be, does not simply equal "verifiable", but rather something more like "verifiable enough" (ie. sufficient verifiable material to write an encyclopedia article). 74.38.33.15 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your phrase "Some 15th century mediocrity" describes exactly what I am afraid of. It boils down to "what I like". You call the 15th century thing 'mediocre' because you are not interested in it. Mediocrity has no objective meaning. Somewhat like notability... Trollderella 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is simply an example, and is only meant to convey that there are weak but existent sources and no one but deep historians who know about the person. —Centrx→talk • 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm disturbed that you think that someone who 'only deep historians... know about' should be deleted from an encyclopedia. It's the kind of behavior that really bothers me on AFD. Trollderella 04:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I think some of your concern here is addressed if we use the phrase "more vulnerable to being monopolized". The idea would be that, all other things being equal, a topic with few sources is more vulnerable to bias than one with many. That's not really controversial, is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply in the edit summary that I had a problem with "monopolized". I made a change, though it is more conducive to the clear grounding policy to have the reference to neutrality in front, if the sentence structure can be modified. —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Those three just look silly to me. "In order to be verifiable, it must be verifiable enough, in order to be neutral, it must be verifiable enough, + we'll restate part of WP:NOT" - it's all just redundant and unnecessary. Trollderella 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I can, say, verify that a company exists by referencing the yellow pages. However, a notable company (meaning one that has multiple, extensive, and independant sources to draw from) allows me to provide additional information to flesh out the article. The MORE sources, the better chance that a) those sources will be themselves in a neutral tone, and thus more suitable for referencing or b) those sources will be of differing viewpoints, allow me to neutralize the article by providing opposing viewpoints in their relative due. If a company is not notable, and thus by definition of notable there are few extensive and independant sources to draw from, the only article I can write will either be insufficient (in that it will contain only directory information) or will be POV in that only sources that are overly critical (or overly praiseworthy) of the company will exist. Thus notability is an indication that sufficient source material exists to write an extensive and neutral article. Thus, again, verifiability is by itself insufficient. Again, I can coble together parts of 3 existing policies/guidelines to indicate problems with this article (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, but it is cumbersome and unweildy to do so. This guideline is helpful in that it is a quick gatekeeper that ensures that all articles that meet WP:N also meet ALL of the above guidelines, AND more... --Jayron 32 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- of course one could try and "neutralize" an article by adding unsourced counter-opinions, but that would violate WP:V and WP:NOR, so it really comes down to those issues, etc. (whether or not this could be considered truly neutral is disputable, though, of course, but it's the closest one can get with sparse sources, but then we run into V problems, etc.) So it is to write an extensive and verifiable, neutral article. 70.101.147.224 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale uses the more general meaning of notability. It could be changed to "significant" or "well-known" to avoid ambiguity, but the face of Wikipedia:Notability is different from its foundation of notability. —Centrx→talk • 04:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To the extend that 'noteworthy' is defined, it means 'worthy of being noted', which is a value judgement. 'Well documented' is a (relatively) objective term, not a point of view. Trollderella 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the point of view of the people who noted it. That is, the people who wrote the books or, separately, the people who edited the article thought it was worthy of note. Things which are much less noteworthy have, for example, only the vanity author taking note of them. Things which are more noteworthy have everyone taking note of them. It is not subjective to say, for example, that World War II was a noteworthy event in Europe; no one there could not have noticed it. Now, this is not a criterion for evaluating articles; there's no threshhold defined in the rationale of how many people are necessary for something to be sufficiently noteworthy it to be a satisfactorily neutral article, but the thing itself is fairly objective, though the measurement of it--which we are not doing here--may not be. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about what is 'noted', ie 'documented'. Not whether it is 'worthy' of being noted. Trollderella 05:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In the case of people editing the article, I don't think documented is accurate; their editing of the article is not them engaging in documentation; nothing whatsoever about their band may be written down anywhere except Wikipedia. I am thinking this should be changed back to "notable". The rationale is the theoretical reasoning for this guideline and its basis in policy. Basing the notability criterion on high verifiability is a decision after that reasoning, both in terms of that policy nexus leading to logical entailments, and in terms of the practical history in that people were talking about general notability long before the push in the last year to improve sourcing throughout the encyclopedia, and long before the PNC was well-defined. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about - which people are you reffering to? How do you know what they are doing? What does "Basing the notability criterion on high verifiability is a decision after that reasoning, both in terms of that policy nexus leading to logical entailments, and in terms of the practical history in that people were talking about general notability long before the push in the last year to improve sourcing throughout the encyclopedia, and long before the PNC was well-defined" mean? Trollderella 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In theory, the specific notability guidelines may be derived from the combination of fundamental Wikipedia principles, which are our premises linked in the Rationale, in the way described in the Rationale. Notability is not based solely on any single one of these policies. In historical practice, too, the general concept of notability, based on these general principles, existed before reliable sourcing came to the fore on Wikipedia, and before the primary notability criterion. —Centrx→talk • 06:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't seem to mean anything. It just sounds like circular propoganda. Trollderella 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is straight logic. The set of axioms is the fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, which entail the sentences in the Rationale, which entail specific notability guidelines, though some of the sentences in the Rationale could be made fuller or the Rationale could be otherwise expanded. The axioms WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT are by no means based on notability themselves. Where is it circular? —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could WP:NOR be included in there too, since it's another fundamental policy? But then again, some have argued that it is simply a speical case of WP:V... 70.101.147.224 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the trouble is, if I'm understanding your somewhat constipated explanation, that there is no simple relationship between Wikipedia policy and the various conflicting 'definitions' of notability. I think you are trying to say that your definition of notability is entirely contained within Wikipedia policy, but that is simply not true. Trollderella 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the Rationale describes the relationship, which precedes the specific notability guidelines, that the practical definition of what qualifies as notable follows from the general definition. The logical connection between fundamental policy and notability guidelines should be made complete and taut. —Centrx→talk • 07:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But the 'Rationale' refers to 'noteworthyness' (not that that means anything). It does not make the relationship 'clear and taut', it is confusing and circular. The rationale simply says that in order to be verifiable, it should have enough material to be verifiable in multiple independent sources, and that less verifiable topics are etc. There is not logical structure there. Trollderella 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe it should be changed to, say, "a subject must be notable enough that sufficient published coverage exists in order to present a full spectrum of known viewpoints in compliance with our neutral point of view policy." Remember, articles that are simply "monopolized" on are not always unsalvageable, since if reliable sources documenting other views exist, it can still be neutralized and thus included -- but if there is too little of that verifiable material to provide an accurate, trustworthy coverage of all views, it would be by necessity (ie. trying not to violate other equally-important policies like WP:V) biased and thus could not be included. 70.101.147.224 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rationale

Makes more sense when you remove the contrived wordiness, and reduce it to what it really means:

In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must have been researched and checked through publication in multiple independent reliable sources.
Topics without multiple independent reliable sources are more vulnerable to being monopolized by partisan or fanatic editors, which compromises the neutrality of the article.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

Trollderella 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what it means. You could even have a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing, without any reference to sources. The multiplicity or independence or reliability of sources does not cause editors to be partisan or not. Why are topics without these sources vulnerable to monopolization? This rationale is not a consequence of the primary notability guideline, it is a justification for it. —Centrx→talk • 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So now the rationale is a result of the thing it is supposed to be rationalizing? Hmm... Trollderella 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Read again. —Centrx→talk • 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow that either, Centrx. I'm pretty confident it makes sense to you, and you're probably right about it, but that's a confusing paragraph. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately reading it more doesn't make it make any more sense. I don't understand what you mean by "a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing" - you seem to be suggesting that if a topic is only of interest to some people right now, then you would delete it? Trollderella 08:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Read again without making wild assumptions. —Centrx→talk • 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reading it more does not make it make more sense. What do you mean by "a notability guideline that was based solely on the number and kind of editors editing"? Trollderella 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole crux of this seems to be that you want articles to be well sourced. So do we all - thankfully we already have policies about that. This linguisting wandering around trying to make it sound as though there is another, altogether more obfuscated meaning is terribly traumatic. Please, let's just say what we mean. Trollderella 08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with sourcing. —Centrx→talk • 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trollderella, how does the current draft look to you? Is this topic still an active debate, or has it been resolved? I ask because I think that the relevant material's been edited more than once since this topic started. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to separate whether the thing makes any sense at all (at present it makes more sense than it did) from whether it is unnecessary and harmfull (it is still both of those things as far as I am concerned. So, while we can fiddle with it, it is basically flawed. It introduces unnecessary and harmful approaches to polcies which already exist to solve a problem that is not there, and in doing so, harms Wikipedia's mission. So yes, I think it's still an active debate. Trollderella 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)